SCRIPTURAL DEFENCE 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

OR A CHECK TO 

MODERN ARIANISM, 

AS TAUGHT BY 

UNITARIANS, HICKSITES, NEW LIGHTS, 
UNIVERSALISTS AND MORMONS ; 

4ND ESPECIALLY BY A SECT CALLING THEMSELVES 

" CHRISTIAN 8>*- 
BY REV. H. MA.TTISON. 

FOURTH EDITION. 

NEW YORK: 
LEWIS COLBY & CO. 

1850. 










Pm 






6° 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by 

HIRAM MATTISON, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States 
ior the Southern District of New York. 



JAM 24 t90a 

Tfeeol, &*>m. 




PREFACE. 



The subject to which the following pages are devoted, has, 
perhaps, elicited as much inquiry and investigation, first and 
last, as any one subject in the whole range of Theology. It 
was among the first doctrinal points that seemed to engage the 
attention of the church generally, after the Apostolic age ; and 
it still continues to be discussed, more or less, in all parts of 
Christendom. The parties in this controversy are divided 
into two general classes : Trinitarians, who hold to a plu- 
rality of persons in unity of the Godhead : and Unitarians, 
who deny this doctrine. The Trinitarian class embraces what 
*re usually called the orthodox and evangelical churches, such 
as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Re- 
formed Dutch, Lutherans, &c. ; while the Unitarians claim 
about the same number of religious orders as belonging to their 
ranks. There is, however, this difference in i the two classes 
named : The Trinitarian churches are decidedly of " one faith" 
in regard to the mode of the Divine existence, and the char- 
acter of Christ ; but with the Unitarians it is far otherwise. 
Of these there are at least three distinct subdivisions, distin- 
guished by a wide difference of opinion upon the very sub- 
ject respecting which they are at issue with Trinitarians. 
They are, first, the Arians ; who regard Christ as an exalted 
creature^ and the Holy Ghost as an attribute or " emanation" 
from the Father ; secondly, the Socinians, who believe 
Christ to be a mere man ; and thirdly the Sabellians, who 
teach that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are merely 
three names for one person ; instead of signifying three dis- 
tinct persons in one being. 

As before said, these all agree in opposing Trinitarianism, and 
are hence called Unitarians ; though as yet they have not been 
able to agree upon a substitute for the orthodox belief. 

As to the comparative strength of these classes respectively, 



IV FRCFACE. 

it is impossible to speak with any degree of certainty. It 
is believed, however, that there are more Anti-Trinitarians 
in this country, who would come under the head of Arians, 
than of either of the other classes. Hence the prominence 
given to this class in our title-page. 

But the Arianism of the present age is not the Arianism of 
the fourth, nor yet of the seventeenth century. Though in 
its principal features it may be little changed, it is, neverthe- 
less, greatly modified and transformed in many respects ; so 
that we feel justified in speaking of it as an old error 
modernized. 

As we have named several distinct sects, as the abettors of 
Arianism, it may be important to glance for a moment at their 
respective tenets. In so doing, however, it will not be expe- 
dient to go beyond the limits of our main subject. 

The term Unitarian, when used generically, is very prop- 
erly applied to all who deny the doctrine of the Trinity ; but 
when used in a specific sense, it denotes only the Socinian 
branch of the Unitarian family. In this sense the Socinians of 
Boston and vicinity are called Unitarians, though they consti- 
tute only one of several Unitarian denominations. Although 
this sect are not, strictly speaking, Arians, we implicate them 
in our title-page, not only because there are Arians among 
them, but because the arguments of the following pages are 
as conclusive against Socinianism as against Arianism itself.* 

The Hicksites are a body of seceders from the Orthodox 
Friends, or Quakers. In their ranks they embody almost 
every species of Unitarianism. Elias Hicks, their founder, 
was a Socinian, and was often heard t^ say during his public 
ministry, that the blood of Christ had no more virtue to atone 
for sin than the blood of a beast. But it is charitably believed 
that his grossest blasphemies were never generally endorsed 
by his followers. Still they embraced most of his notions; 
and especially what he taught and wrote respecting the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, and the character of Christ. They are, 
therefore, fully entitled to the appellation of Modern Arians. 

The New Lights are little known, except in some of the 

* In the first three editions of this work, the u Campbellites" or 
" Disciples" were mentioned in the preface, and included in this list. 
as Arians in sentiment. Of this classification, however, Mr. Campbell 
complains, and denies that either himself or his followers are justly- 
chargeable with that heresy. It gives us pleasure, therefore, to record 
his disavowal of so pernicious a doctrine, though we are certain that 
many of the early expositors of Mr. Campbell's views, were decidedly 
Arian. We should like to read something upon this subject from the 
pen of Mr. Campbell himself. 



PREFACE. V 

Western states, and are probably not very numerous any 
where. They are said to be Arians in sentiment, and arc 
classed here with their brethren, on account of their family 
likeness, as we wish to follow out the one great error in all its 
relationships. 

The Univeesalists are perhaps too well known to require 
any particular description. Among them may be found Socin- 
ians and Sabellians ; though a majority hold to a modified 
Arianism. We hope, therefore, to do something to cheek its 
progress in this direction also. 

The Mormons are strong advocates of Arianism with its 
modem phases. They believe that Christ was a super-an- 
gelic, but created being — that God has a body like man, and 
that the Spirit of God is the soul of the Father ; analogous 
to the spirit of man within him. They therefore oppose the 
doctrine that God is without body or parts, as well as the 
doctrine of the Trinity in general. 

The sect designated as " Christians," are known by differ- 
ent names in different parts of the country. They are some- 
times called " Christians^ (pronouncing the first i long,) 
while in other localities they are distinguished as Avians, 
merely, or as Unitarians. Not unfrequently they are so iden- 
tified with some prominent preacher of their doctrines, as to 
bear his name; hence the Laneites, the Plummerites, &c. 
But their sentiments are not materially affected by the title 
they bear. Whether as "Christians" or "New Lights," 
"Arians." or " Plummerites," they still disseminate the same 
dangerous errors. They have never given their views to the 
world in the form of a Confession of Faith, though they have 
several small volumes in which their views are set forth in a 
condensed form, and which amount, in fact, to a creed. Of 
these, Kinkade's "Bible Doctrine,' 3 Millard's "True Messiah," 
and Morgridge's " True Believer's Defence," may be con- 
sidered as specimens. These works are generally spoken of 
by the order as containing their sentiments, though they pro- 
fess to repudiate all creeds but the Bible. They are indus- 
triously circulated by their ministers, and are not unfrequently 
boasted of as orthodox and unanswerable productions. Mr. 
Kinkade's work, which was written many years since, has 
been republished within a few years past, by two preachers of 
this sect, and recommended by them as expressing their views 
better than they themselves could express them. Moreover, 
the " Christian Palladium" the periodical organ of the de- 
nomination, commends this new edition in the strongest pos- 
sible terms. We name these things to show that in discussing 
Arianism. as found in the above-mentioned volumes } we have 



Vl PREFACE. 

not been beating the air. These books are, in fact, the ex- 
ponents of the views of the order, as much so as if they were 
publicly set forth as Confessions of Faith. 

From the above remarks, the reader will readily understand 
what is meant by " Modern Arianism," and why so many 
different sects are implicated as its advocates. Though it is 
proposed to consider only one specific and general error, still, 
as this error runs out into several different bodies of professed 
Christians, and is more or less modified by each, respectively ; 
it is thought proper to name these several bodies, and to class 
them where they legitimately belong in the controversy. 

Though this volume is devoted mainly to the Arian phase 
of Unitarianism, it is hoped that it will not be found wanting 
in adaptation to other types of this great error. As a Defence 
of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is as well suited to a Socin- 
ian or Sabellian, as to an Arian community. 

In preparing this work for the press, the writer has been 
particularly desirous to secure for it the following charac- 
teristics : 

1. A clear and natural method, or arrangement of its parts. 
The plan adopted is original, and, it is thought, possesses sev^ 
eral important advantages. 

2. Brevity, and by consequence, cheapness. The mass of 
readers have neither means to pay for, nor time to read, ex- 
pensive and voluminous publications. 

3. Though concise and brief, it was intended to be complete ; 
that is, to embrace all that really belongs to the subject. In 
this respect it differs materially from a treatise on the Divinity 
of Christ, or upon any other single feature of Trinitarianism. 

4. It discusses Arianism, not as it was a century ago, or in 
the days of Arius, but as it now is in our own country. This 
is considered one of its most valuable peculiarities. 

5. The style of the work is adapted to the class of readers 
for whom it was mainly intended. It is neither superficial on 
the one hand, nor metaphysical and tedious on the other. 
Neither has it been thought best to employ technical and dif- 
ficult theological terms, when others could be found equally 
expressive, and more easily understood. 

These are features not always to be met with in works of 
the kind, and such, it is thought, as will favor the circulation 
and promote the usefulness of the present volume. With an 
earnest desire to serve the cause of truth among all orders of 
Christians, and in hope of the Divine approval and blessing, it 
is now sent forth to the world. May it be to the glory of God. 

New York, September, 1846. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 

Page 

Section I. — The Doctrine of the Trinity has always been 
considered important by the Church of 
God, 2 

II. — It essentially affects our views of God as an 

object of worship, 4 

III. — It is intimately connected with morals, . 5 
IV. — It influences our love to God, ... 6 
V. — The doctrine of Atonement depends upon 

the doctrine of the Trinity, ... 7 
VI.— The evil of sin can be fully estimated only 

in connection with this doctrine, . . 8 
VII. — Supreme love to Christ can never be inno- 
cently indulged, but by admitting his pro- 
per Divinity, 8 

VIII. — Trust, Hope, and Joy in Christ, are based 

upon the doctrine of the Trinity, . . 9 
IX. — The denial of this doctrine affects the credit 
of the Holy Scriptures, as a revelation 
from God, . . . * . .9 

CHAPTER II. 

STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES — DEFINITION OF TERMS. 

Doctrines Stated, . .11 

Section I.— The term " Son," . . . . .12 
II. — The term "person," ..... 14 



Vlll 



CONTENTS. 



Page 

Section III. — The term " Trinity" — not in the Bible, 15 

IV. — The term " incarnation" ... 16 



CHAPTER III. 

THE UNITY OF GOD. 



Arian and Trinitarian Unity, 
Unity essential to a Trinity. 
Scripture proofs of unity, 
Arianism virtually denies unity, . 
Arian liberties with the Scriptures, 



. 17 
. 18 

18, 19 
. 19 

19.20 



CHAPTER IV. 



TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

Doctrine stated, 20 

Proved I. — From Isa. ix. 6 — " Unto us a child is born," 21 
II.— From Mic. v. 2—" But thou, Bethlehem," &c. 22 
III. — From Heb. x. 5 — " A body hast thou pre- 
pared me," 22 
IV.— From 1 Peter iii. 18—" Put to death in the 

flesh," 22 

V. — From Rom. ix. 5 — " Of whom, as concern- 
ing the flesh Christ came," 22 
VI. — From Phil. ii. 5 — " Form of God" — "form of 

VII.— From Heb. ii. 14-17—" Took part" of " flesh 

and blood," 24 

VIII.— From Matt. xxii. 41— " David's God and 

son," 24 

IX. — From Rev. xxii. 16 — "Root and offspring of 

David," 25 

X. — From John xvii. 11, compared with xiv. 
23 — " I am no more in the world" — makes 
his abode with us, 25 

XI.— From Mark xiv. 7, with Matt, xxviii. 20— 
"I am with you alway" — "me ye have 
not always," 25 

XII. — Arianism the " spirit of Antichrist" mention- 
ed 1 John iv. 3, and 2 John 6, 7.— Why 
not fellowship or commune with Arians, 26, 27 



CONTENTS. IX 
CHAPTER V. 

HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

Section I. — Christ was man corporeally, 30 
II. — He was man mentally, . • . .31 
III. — He was man morally, .... 33 
IV. — His relationships imply his humanity, . . 33 
V. — Was known as man by his cotemporaries, 34 
VI. — Is called man by the Prophets and Apostles, 34 
VII. — Christ asserts his own humanity, . . 35 
VIII. — Proper humanity was essential to an atone- 
ment, 35 
IX. — Christ must be our "kinsman" or relative, to 

become our " Redeemer." Lev. xxv. 25, 35 
X. — Was tempted "in all points" like man, 35 
XI. — Is adduced by the Apostle Paul as a speci- 
men of human resurrection, ... 36 
XII. — Christ is our Mediator — pattern, . . 37 
Recapitulation of arguments, ... 37 

CHAPTER VI. 

DEITY OF CHRIST. 

Doctrine stated at length, 38, 39 
Arian notions of Divinity — what they mean by "di- 
vine," as applied to Christ, 40 
Christ not a "creature" — Col. i. 15, and Rev. iii. 15, con- 
sidered, 41 
Basis of the argument — attributes, ... 42, 43 
Section I. — God a spirit without body or parts, . j 44 
II. — God is the real and only Creator, . . 47 
Christ created all things, . . 48 
Agency and Delegation scheme, . 48 — 51 
III.— Christ the Eternal Being, ... 52 
IV. — Christ the Omnipotent Being, . . .54 
V. — Christ is Omniscient, .... 56 
Consideration of Matt. xxiv. 36, . . 57 
VI. — Christ is Omnipresent, ... 62 
VII. — He is the proper object of religious worship, 64 
Arian doctrine of subordinate worship, 

considered at length and refuted, 65, 73 

VIII. — Scriptures implying the Deity of Christ, 73 
IX. — The titles of Christ are proofs of his supreme 

Divinity, 74 



CONTENTS. 



Sec. X.-— The Deity of Christ follows from the fact that 
he forgives sins, 
Arian and Papal notion of pardon by proxy, 
Recapitulation of arguments, 



CHAPTER VII. 

DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

Section I. — Of the nature of God as " a spirit," . . 83 

II. — Doctrines proved from 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17, . 84 

III.— From Acts xxviii. 25, .... 85 

IV.— The Holy Spirit is the Creator, . . . . 85 

V. — His Divinity is implied, Matt. xii. 31— sin 

against the Holy Ghost, ... 85 

VI. — The Holy Spirit is Omniscient, . . 86 

VII. — He is Omnipresent, 86 

VIII.— He is Eternal, 86 

IX.— The terms " Holy Ghost" and " God" are used 

synonymously in the Scriptures, 86 
X. — He is the God who called the Apostles to the 

Ministry, &c. 87 

XI. — Has absolute authority over the Church, 87 

Recapitulation of arguments, 88 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON FROM THE FATHER. 

Section I. — He is a mind or intelligence, 89 

II. — The Spirit has intelligence or knowledge, 90 
III.— The Holy Ghost has will, 90 

IV. — Is distinguished from the Father in the 
Scriptures, in the same manner that the 
Son is, 90-92 

V. — The Arian arguments for Christ's sepa- 
rate existence from the Father, proves 
the Spirit at least to be a distinct person, 92 
VI. — The Holy Spirit is subject to the Son as 

well as the Father, 92 

VII. — The personal acts of the Spirit prove his 

distinct personality, 93 



CONTENTS. XI 

CHAPTER IX. 

THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 

Page 

Summary of points established, 96 

Section I.— Plurality of the term " Godhead" . . 97 
II— Of the term " Elohim," Gen. i. 1, . .97 
III. — "Let its make man in our image," Gen. i. 26, 98 
IV. — "The man is become as one of us" Gen. 

iii. 22. 99 

V. — " Go to, let us go down," &c. xi. 7, . .99 
VI. — Proved from Isa. vi. 8, . . . .99 
VII.— From 1 John v. 7. " There are three that 
bear record in heaven," &c. — text vindi- 
cated at length as genuine, 101 — 108 
Its true doctrine set forth, 108 
Arian proof-texts considered, viz. John xvii. 
20 — 23 ; 1 Cor. iii. 7, 8; and Galatians 
iii. 28, 109-111 
VIII. — A trinity of persons proven from Matt, xxiii. 

9 — " Go ye therefore and teach," 113 

IX. — From the Apostolic benediction, 2 Corin- 
thians xiii. 14, 113-114 
I 

CHAPTER X. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY ANSWERED. 

Section I. — That it is " of human origin," . . 115 
II. — " An invention of Popery," . . . 116 
III— That " it is unscriptural," ... 118 
IV.— " It is a mystery," . . . . 119 

V. — " It is unreasonable," .... 120 
VI. — " It represents Christ as two persons," and 
thus makes out four persons in the God- 
head, 121 
VII. — " Allows us only a human sacrifice in the 

atonement," 122 

VIII. — " Goes to say thatthe Son of God never died," 124 
IX. — "It declares, in substance, that God died," 125 
X. — "Admits no humiliation in the advent of 

Christ," 126 

XI. — " Allows of no Mediator between God 

and us," 126 

XII. — " Represents Christ as sending himself into 

the world, praying to himself," &c, 127 



XU CONTENTS. 

Page 
Sec. XIII. — " It makes the sufferings of Christ on the 

cross to be comparatively nothing," 128 

CHAPTER XI. 

OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM STATED AND URGED. 

Section I. — Arianism is of suspicious origin, 133 

II. — Is a system of unbelief rather than a sys- 
tem of faith, 134 
III. — It shuns investigation, or " hateth the light," 134 
IV. — It recognizes at least three distinct Gods, 1 35 
V. — It acknowledges two distinct Saviours, 135 
VI. — It endorses some of the worst features of 
Popery — worship of creatures — pardon by 
proxy — intolerance, 136—141 
VII. — It is pointedly reprobated in the Holy Scrip- 
tures, 142 
VIII.— Modern Arianism destroys the personality 

of God, angels, and disembodied Spirits, 143 
IX. — It destroys all ground of trust in the Lord 

Jesus Christ, 143 

X. — It denies the doctrine of Atonement by 

Christ, 145 

XI. — It takes away the strongest proofs of human 

resurrection, 147 

XII. — It robs God of the honor of Creation and 
providence, and wholly excludes him from 
participation in the affairs of this world, 148 
XIII. — It keeps bad company, and has a strange af- 
finity to other forms of error, 149 
XIV. — It has never been received as truth by the 

Church of God, 149 

XV. — It has never been blessed of God as an in- 
strument of extensive reformation, 152 
XVI. — In the absence of the Divine blessing, it re- 
sorts to unjustifiable and wicked means to 
sustain itself, 153 
XVII. — Modern Arianism outrages philosophy, rea- 
son, revelation, consistency, and com- 
mon sense, 155 
XVIII. — It wholly excludes God and Christ from the 

Church, and from the world, 157 

General Summary of arguments — conclusion, 169 



A SCRIPTURAL DEFENCE, ETC. 

CHAPTER I. 

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 

Before entering upon our main design, we in- 
vite attention for a few moments to the importance 
and general bearing of the subject. From the days 
of Arius it has been a chosen scheme with his dis- 
ciples to represent the doctrine of the Trinity as a 
matter of mere speculation, and consequently of 
little importance. The first step in almost every 
effort to disseminate Arianism, is, if possible, to in- 
duce the belief that the opposite doctrine has no 
practical bearing, that we may believe or disbelieve 
it, without in the least affecting our- Christian ex- 
perience, or impeding our progress in the way to 
heaven. 

If such is the nature of the subject, the produc- 
tion of the following pages is a criminal waste of 
time and paper ; and no person should participate 
in our guilt, by reading what we have written. 
But should the reader conclude to proceed, the at- 
tentive perusal of these pages will be expected of 
those only who have proper views of the nature and 
importance of the subject ; as no wise man will 
spend much time or thought on a matter of little 
or no consequence. This question, then, should be 
1 



2 IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 

settled at the outset. If, as has been alleged, the 
doctrine of the Trinity is of little importance, and 
has no necessary connection with our present 
or future happiness, this work should be thrown 
aside at the close of the first chapter; and the 
whole subject consigned to forgetfulness. On the 
other hand, should it be made to appear that this 
doctrine is so far fundamental in Christianity, and 
so interwoven with its whole frame-work, as to in- 
volve in its rejection the rejection of the saving 
truth of God, and the blood of atonement, and con- 
sequently the hope of salvation by Jesus Christ, no 
reasonable man will dismiss the subject with a su- 
perficial examination ; or rest contented till he has 
learned the truth as it is in Christ. 

I. That this doctrine has been considered and de- 
fended as a doctrine of vital importance, by a ma- 
jority of Christians in all ages, few will deny. It 
is impossible to account for the long and earnest 
controversies that have been kept up from the time 
of Arius, upon this subject, without supposing that 
one party, at least, considered the point in dispute 
a matter of great interest. It would be an invidi- 
ous reflection upon the Church, to suppose that she 
has contended thus long and earnestly about nothing. 
It is too late now, after centuries of polemic war- 
fare, to throw this doctrine aside as a matter of 
mere speculation. Besides the general sentiment 
of the Church for eighteen hundred years, it is a 
consideration of no small weight, as it respects this 
point, that nine-tenths of all the professed Chris- 
tians in the land consider it a doctrine of vital im- 
portance, and as lying at the very foundation of the 
Christian system. So deeply are they impressed 
with this belief, that they not only discard the op- 
posite error as false, and ruinous in its tendencies. 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 3 

but they even refuse to fellowship those who un- 
derstandingly embrace it; or to admit that they 
have built upon the rock Christ Jesus. Metho- 
dists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Orthodox Quakers. 
Episcopalians, Reformed Dutch, and Lutherans, 
all agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is an es- 
sential doctrine of Revelation. Now were the 
above churches Romanists — were they grossly ig- 
norant or corrupt, or even if they all belonged to 
the same ecclesiastical organization, the case would 
be different. But this is not the fact. They are 
all Protestants and students of the Holy Scriptures, 
and have learning and ability to understand them ; 
and as to their piety, the most conscientious Arians 
themselves will readily fellowship them as the 
children of God. Besides, each church has its pe- 
culiarities in doctrine and government, and its se- 
parate interests; and yet, on the point in hand 
they unite in a common verdict, not only that the 
doctrine of the Trinity is true, but that those who 
understandingly reject it, "deny the Lord that 
bought them." 

But allowing that this doctrine has no intrinsic 
importance ; does not the fact that it is generally 
believed by the Church of Christ, invest it with an 
importance that should secure for it a candid and 
prayerful consideration ? If it is considered funda- 
mental, by any body of Christians, must they not 
in consistency reject all from their communion who 
deny it 1 and ought we to complain of their ex- 
clusiveness, till we have inquired whether or not 
they have sufficient warrant for their course. If 
they are wrong in proscribing the opposite senti- 
ment, then indeed the Arians have cause to com- 
plain ; but if, on the other hand, they are justifiable 
in so doing, we should not only cease to brand them 



4 IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 

as bigots and persecutors, but commend their pru- 
dence and caution, in rearing up effectual barriers 
against the encroachments of error. 

But let us look at the merits of the doctrine it- 
self. The Christian religion stands pre-eminently 
above every other religion, as furnishing correct 
knowledge of the true God. This knowledge lies 
at the root of every man's theology, and must, con- 
sequently, affect his whole creed, his practice, and 
his eternal condition. The present, then, must be 
a question of great magnitude. Unlike many 
fruitless controversies that disturb the peace of 
Zion, this question involves the great first princi- 
ples of the Christian faith. It relates to Jehovah 
— his nature and mode of being ; to the character 
of Jesus Christ, and the whole plan of remedy and 
salvation by His atonement. How then can it be 
a subject of little importance ? and what Christian 
can be indifferent, in respect to matters so vitally 
connected with his hope of heaven ? Let us ap- 
proach the subject, then, with seriousness and with 
candor ; and let us bestow upon it that time and at- 
tention which its importance demands. 

The following remarks, chiefly from Mr. Wat- 
son, will serve more fully to illustrate the point 
under consideration. 

II. It essentially affects our views of God as the 
object of our worship, whether we regard him as 
one in essence, and one in person, or admit that in 
the unity of this Godhead there are three equally 
Divine persons. These are two very different con- 
ceptions. Both cannot be true. The God of those 
who deny the Trinity, is not the God of those who 
worship the Trinity in unity, nor on the contrary ; 
so that one or the other worships what is " nothing 
in the world ;" and, for any reality in the object of 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 

worship, might as well worship a pagan idol. If 
God be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the duties 
owing to God will be duties owing to that Triune 
distinction, which must be paid accordingly ; and 
whoever leaves any of these out of his idea of God, 
comes so far short of honoring God perfectly, and 
of serving him in proportion to the manifestations 
he has made of himself. As the object of our wor- 
ship is affected by our respective views on this 
great subject, so also its character. We are between 
the extremes of pure and acceptable devotion, and 
gross and offensive idolatry, and must run to one or 
the other, If the doctrine of the Trinity be true, 
then those who deny it do not worship the God of 
the Scriptures, but a fiction of their own framing ; 
if it be false, the Trinitarian, by paying Divine 
honors to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, is equally 
guilty of idolatry, though in another mode, It is as 
important then to know the truth on this subject, as 
it is to know whether we are idolaters, or the wor- 
shippers of the true God. 

III. The connection of this doctrine with morals, 
is also obvious and striking. The Trinitarian 
scheme is essentially connected with the doctrine of 
Atonement, while the Unitarian theory necessarily 
excludes it. From this arise opposite views of God, 
as the Governor of the world — of the law under 
which we are placed — of the nature and conse- 
quences of sin, the violation of that law — points 
which have an essential relation to morals, because 
they affect the nature of the sanctions which accom- 
pany the law of God. He who denies the Doctrine 
of the Trinity, and its necessary adjunct, the Atone- 
ment, makes sin a matter of comparatively trifling 
moment : God is not strict to punish it ; and if pun- 
ishment follow, it is not eternal. Whether, under 
1* 



6 IMPORTANCE OP THE SUBJECT. 

these soft and easy views of the law of God, and of 
its transgression by sin, morals can have an equal 
sanction, or human conduct be equally restrained, 
are points too obvious to be argued. 

IV. Our love to God, which is the sum of every 
duty, its sanctifying motive, and consequently a 
compendium of all true religion, is most intimately, 
and even essentially connected with the doctrine in 
question. God's love to us is the ground of our 
love to him ; and by our views of that, it must be 
heightened or diminished. The love of God to 
man in the gift of his Son, is that manifestation of 
it on which the Scriptures most emphatically and 
frequently dwell, and on which they establish our 
duty of loving God and one another. Now the 
estimate which we are to take of the love of God, 
must be the value of his gifts to us. His greatest 
gift is the gift of his Son, through whom alone we 
have the promise of everlasting life ; but our esti- 
mate of the love which gives must be widely differ- 
ent, according as we regard the gift bestowed, as a 
creature, or as a divine person, — as merely a son of 
man, or as the Son of God. If the former only, it 
is difficult to conceive in what this love, constantly 
represented as " unspeakable" and astonishing, could 
consist Indeed, if we suppose Christ to be a man 
only, on the Socinian scheme, or as an exalted crea- 
ture, according to the Arians, God might be rather 
said to have " so loved his Son" than us, as to send 
him into the world, on a service so honorable, and 
which was to be followed by so high and vast a re- 
ward, that he, a creature, should be advanced to uni- 
versal dominion, and receive universal homage as 
the price only of temporary sufferings, which, upon 
either the Socinian or Arian scheme, were not 
greater than those which many of his disciples en- 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 7 

dured after him, and, in many instances, not so 
great. 

For the same reason, the doctrine which denies 
our Lord's Divinity diminishes the love of Christ 
himself, takes away its generosity and devotedness, 
presents it under views infinitely below those con- 
tained in the New Testament, and weakens the 
motives which are drawn from it to excite our grati- 
tude and obedience. If Christ was in the form of 
God, equal with God, and very God, it was then an 
act of infinite love and condescension in him to as- 
sume our nature ; but ii he was no more than a 
creature, it was no surprising condescension to em- 
bark in a work so glorious ; such as being the Sa- 
viour of mankind, and such as would advance him 
to be Lord and Judge of the world, to be admired, 
reverenced, and adored, both by men and angels. 
To this it may be added, that the idea of disinterest- 
ed, generous love, such as the love of Christ is rep- 
resented to be by the Evangelists and the Apostles, 
cannot be supported upon any supposition but that 
he was properly a Divine person. As a man and 
as a creature only, however exalted, he would have 
profited by his exaltation ; but, considered as Divine, 
Christ gained nothing. To deny his Divinity, 
therefore, is to deny that his love to man is generous 
and disinterested; hence the Arian and Socinian 
schemes totally destroy the true character of the 
love of Christ. They alter the very foundations of 
Christianity, and destroy all the powerful argu- 
ments based upon the love, humility, and condescen- 
sion of our Lord, which are the peculiar motives of 
the Gospel. 

V. The doctrine of satisfaction or atonement de- 
pends upon the Divinity of our Lord ; and is there- 
fore consistently denied by Arians and Socinians. 



8 IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 

No creature could merit from God, or do works of 
supererogation. If, then, Christ be a mere creature^ 
there is no intrinsic value or merit in his atonement ; 
or, in other words, we have no atonement. 

The question of the Trinity, then, amounts sul> 
stantially to this : Did Christ die for us, in the sense 
of making an atonement for sin % Indeed the very 
terms of salvation, and the grounds of our hope of 
heaven are affected by it. 

VI. The manner in which the evil of sin is esti- 
mated must be very different, on these views of the Di- 
vine nature respectively ; and this is a consequence 
of a directly practical nature. Whatever lowers in; 
men a sense of what an Apostle calls " the exceed- 
ing sinfulness of sin," weakens the hatred and hor- 
ror of it among men, and by consequence encour- 
ages it. In the Orthodox doctrine, sin is an evil so 
great in itself, so hateful to God, so injurious in its 
effects, so necessary to be restrained by punishment, 
that it dooms the offender to eternal exclusion from 
God, and to positive endless punishment, and could 
only be forgiven through such a sacrifice or atone- 
ment, as that of the death of the Son of God. A 
denial of the doctrine of the Trinity must therefore 
lower our views of the magnitude of sin, as it low- 
ers the sacrifice required for its expiation ; and the 
more feeble our sense of the enormity of sin, the 
more careless shall we be in respect to its com- 
mission. 

VII. Love to Christ, which is made so eminent 
a grace in internal and experimental Christianity, 
changes also its character, as our views of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity are changed. If Christ be a 
mere creature, our love to him cannot be supreme ; 
for that would be to break the first and great com- 
mandment — " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. \) 

with all thy heart," &c. We must therefore love 
him as we love any creature from whom we have 
received benefit ; and our love must be constantly 
guarded and restrained, lest it should become exces- 
sive, and wean our thoughts from God. But surely 
it is not under such views that love to Christ is re- 
presented in the Scriptures ; and against its excesses, 
as against " worshipping and serving the creature 
more than the Creator," we have certainly no ad- 
monitions — no cautions. Supreme love to Christ, 
is an infallible characteristic of a true Christian ; 
and so essential is it, in genuine Christian expe- 
rience, that the curse of God is pronounced on all 
who love him not. " If any man love not the Lord 
Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maran-atha." 

To lower the character of Christ, then, is to les- 
sen our love to him, and to run the fearful hazard 
of incurring the curse of God and the " wrath of 
the Lamb." 

VIII. The general and habitual exercise of the 
affections of trust, hope, joy, &c, towards Christ, 
are all interfered with by the Arian doctrine. If 
the Redeemer were not omnipotent and omniscient, 
could we be certain that he always hears our pray- 
ers, and knows the source and remedy of all our 
miseries ? If he were not all-merciful, could we 
be certain he must always be willing to pardon and 
relieve us ? If he were not all-powerful, could we 
be sure that he must always be able to support and 
strengthen, to enlighten and direct us? Of any 
being less than God, we might suspect that his pur- 
poses might waver, his promise fail, his existence 
itself, perhaps, terminate ; for, of every created be- 
ing, the existence must be dependent and ter- 
minable. 

IX. The language, too, we say not of the 



10 IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 

Church of Christ in all ages, for that has been 
formed upon her faith, but of the Scriptures them- 
selves, must be altered and brought down to these 
inferior views. No dying saint could say, u Lord 
Jesus receive my spirit," if Christ were a mere 
man like ourselves, and the redeemed, neither in 
heaven nor in earth, would so dare to associate a 
creature with God in divine honors and solemn 
worship, as to unite in the chorus, " Blessing and 
honor, and glory and power, be unto Him that sit- 
teth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for 
ever !" 

While we consider the doctrine of the Trinity 
as interwoven with the very frame and texture of 
the Christian religion, it appears natural to con- 
ceive that the whole scheme and economy of man's 
redemption was laid with a principal view to it, in 
order to bring mankind gradually into an acquaint- 
ance with the Three Divine Persons, one God 
blessed for ever. We would speak with all due 
modesty, caution, and reverence, as becomes us, al- 
ways in what concerns the unsearchable councils 
of heaven : but we say, there appears to us none 
so probable an account of the Divine Dispensa- 
tions, from first to last, as what we have just men- 
tioned, namely, that such a redemption was pro- 
vided, such an expiation for sins required, such a 
method of sanctification appointed, and then re- 
vealed, that so men might know that there are 
Three Divine Persons, — might be apprized how 
infinitely the world is indebted to them, and might 
accordingly be better instructed and inclined to love, 
honor, and adore them here, because that must be 
a considerable part of their employment and hap- 
piness hereafter. 

The subject before us, then, is not one of mere 



ETC. 11 

curiosity and speculation, but one in which every 
man has an interest, precious as the happiness of 
the soul, and deep as eternity itself. Let us resolve, 
therefore, to know the truth, and fully to settle this 
great question. Let us open before us that store- 
house of knowledge, the Bible ; and, with a pa- 
tience and candor becoming an inquiry so impor- 
tant, and a determination not to be biased by pre- 
judices or prepossessions, let us pursue our investi- 
gations in the fear of God. Above all, let us in- 
voke that influence from above which alone can 
reveal to us " the things of the Spirit," and guide 
us safely by the truth unto eternal life. 



CHAPTER II. 

STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES— DEFINITION OF TERMS. 

In order to a clear understanding of the subject 
to be considered, it may be necessary briefly to 
state both the Arian and Trinitarian doctrines, and 
also to define certain terms that will be used in the 
progress of the discussion. 

Trinitarians believe that there is but one living 
and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of 
infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker 
and Preserver of all things visible and invisible ; 
but that in unity of this Godhead there are three 
persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They 
hold that the Son, who is eternal, and truly and 
properly Divine, took upon himself humanity, in 
order to make an atonement for sin ; so that two 
whole and perfect natures, that is to say, humanity 
and Divinity, were united in the person of Christ, 



12 STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES. 

They also regard the Holy Ghost as a distinct per- 
son in the Godhead, and one in substance, power, 
and eternity, with the Father and the Son. Not 
that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are each God, 
separately and independently considered, (for we 
never contemplate their Divinity in this light,) but 
that these three, in unity, constitute the one all- 
perfect, incomprehensible, and eternal Being. 

On the other hand modern Arians affirm that 
there is no distinction of persons in the Go'dhead 
— that Christ has but one nature, — that though 
higher than angels, he is, nevertheless, a created 
being, neither human or Divine ; and that the 
Holy Ghost is merely an attribute, or emanation from 
the Father. Some, however, regard the Spirit as 
the mind or soul of the Father, in connection with a 
Divine body, which is seated upon the throne of 
heaven. 

The above is an epitome of the respective creeds, 
as near as they can be stated in few words. 

As the terms son, person, trinity, and incarnation, 
are frequently used in the course of this work, and 
the sense in which we use them may be misunder- 
stood, it may be necessary to show, at this point, in 
what sense they are employed. 

I. The term son always points out a relation; 
but those relations differ very much in their na- 
ture, as will be seen by the following examples : — 
1. It primarily signifies the relation of a male 
child to his natural father, as u David the son of 
Jesse." 2. That of the Christian to God, as " to 
them gave He power to become the sons of God. 37 
" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God." " Beloved, now are we the 
sons of God." 3. That of the angels to God, as 
" when the sons of God came to present themselves 



DEFINITION OF TERMS l3 

before the Lord." 4. That of a pupil to his in- 
structor, as Eli said to Samuel, " I called not, my 
son f and Paul calls Timothy and Titus his " sons 
in the faith." 5. That of a creature to the Creator, as 
" Adam was the son of God." 6. Judas was the u . son 
of perdition." 7. The relations of the persons in 
the Godhead, as, " Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." 
Here we have seven different relations, expressed 
by the term son ; and only one of them is txiat of a 
son to his natural father. Now, we may declare 
Christ to be " the Son of God," and yet be very in- 
definite in our meaning, unless we show in vjhat 
sense we use the term son. Mr. Millard, and most 
other Arians, say, he is a son in the first sense — 
" a natural Son of God, as Solomon was the son of 
David." Hence the stress laid upon the term son. 
by Arians generally, in preaching and prayer. 
But Kinkade says he is the Son of God by creation 
— " in the sense that Adam was the Son of God." 
So these great reformers are as far apart in their 
views of Christ, as a created being is from the Un- 
created. Perhaps others would say he is a son by 
regeneration, or as the angels are sons of God, &c. 
Trinitarians understand the term in a different 
sense when applied to Christ. The humanity of 
Christ is the Son of God, because supernaturally 
begotten by the Holy Ghost. Hence, in view of 
her conception by the Spirit, the angel said to 
Mary, u that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
shall be called the Son of God." But that spirit- 
ual nature that existed before the world began, can- 
not be a son in this sense, because it was never 
thus begotten. Neither is He the Son of God as 
Solomon was the son of David ; for son, in its 
primary sense, implies a father and mother, as well 
as a natural birth ; and to make Christ the Son of 
2 



14 STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES. 

God in this sense, would be to say that there was a 
father, mother, and son in heaven before time be- 
gan ; and that all of them were Gods ! Absurd 
and blasphemous as is this notion, it is constantly 
implied whenever Christ is represented as being 
"the natural Son of God." The term "Son," 
then, when applied to the Divine Nature of Christ, 
is used to express a relation subsisting between the 
persons of the Godhead, which, instead of being 
like that of a family of father, mother, and chil- 
dren, is different from all human or earthly relations, 
and to all finite minds incomprehensible. 

II. The term person, like son, is used in various sen- 
ses in the Holy Scriptures and elsewhere. Its first ac- 
ceptation is " an individual human being, consisting 
of body and soul." It is used also to denote the body 
only, as, when we say, a lady adorns her person ; and 
to distinguish one's self from a representative, as 
" the queen delivered her speech in person" &c. A 
corporate body is a person in law, and the term per- 
son is applied to God the Father, Heb. i. 3. In the 
latter instance, it is evidently used to denote one of 
" the three that bear record in heaven," and not in 
its common acceptation. It is, therefore, used by 
Trinitarians to denote either of the three that con- 
stitute the Supreme Being, the Father, Word, or 
Holy Ghost. But it is differently understood by 
Arians. Because it commonly signifies a body and 
soul, and is applied to the Father, they infer that 
God has a body ! Hence Kinkade, in attempting 
to make out a corporeal Deity, veils his absurd no- 
tions under the running caption, " God a real per- 
son." That by "person]' he means a body, is evi- 
dent from the fact, that he goes on to show that God 
has hands, feet, eyes, ears, face, arms, &c., — that he 
has a " shape " like man, and that he is local ; or, 



DEFINITION OF TERMS. 15 

in other words, is not everywhere present. In this 
he is followed by Arians generally. No wonder, 
therefore, that they oppose the doctrine of a plural- 
ity of persons in the Godhead, if by person they 
mean a body, or a distinct and independent being. 
But Trinitarians use the term in a different sense 
altogether. They employ it merely to denote one 
of those distinctions in the Godhead which are re- 
vealed in the Scriptures. Nor is it a valid objection 
to this view of the subject that we are unable pre- 
cisely and fully to define the terms person and son^ 
as applied to the Deity. They are intelligible so 
far as to point out a distinction and a relation, but the 
precise nature of that relation, is not to be compre- 
hended by mortals. " Canst thou by searching find 
out God ? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto 
perfection % It is as high as heaven ; what canst 
thou do ? deeper than hell : what canst thou know V' 
How preposterous for man, after having heard, from 
the lips of God, all that he has been pleased to re- 
veal, to refuse to believe what he has revealed of him- 
self, simply because he cannot comprehend the infi- 
nite God, and scan with precision his mode of being ! 
We should remember that " secret things belong tG 
God, but revealed things to us and our children. 5 ' 

III. Much stress is often laid upon the circum- 
stance that the word Trinity is not found in the 
Bible. But does this affect the truth or falsity of 
the doctrine ? We are not contending that the 
term Trinity is a Bible term, but that the doctrine of 
the Trinity is a Bible doctrine. The term Trinity 
is a proper English term, compounded, according to 
Webster, of tres, or three, and unus, or one. Hence, 
tri-unity, or Trinity, signifies three-one, and is used 
to denote the doctrine of three persons in one God. 

Now if it is insisted that the doctrine of the Tri- 



16 



STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES. 



nity is not a Scriptural doctrine, because the word 
trinity is not found in the Bible, we may for the 
same reason deny the doctrine of Divine Providence, 
and of the omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence 
of the Deity ; as none of these terms are taken from 
the Scriptures. The truth is, we are not bound to 
express our views of the meaning of the Scripture 
in Bible language; neither do any practice thus, 
even the most conscientious Arians themselves. 
Indeed, to attempt to explain a text by reading it 
over and over to his hearers, would be an experi- 
ment which few Arian preachers would be willing 
to make. They constantly use " unscriptural terms *4- 
as they call them, in preaching, singing, and pray- 
er ; and, it is inconsistent to condemn others for 
what we ourselves practice. " Happy is he that 
condemneth not himself in that thing which he at 
loweth." 

IV. A few remarks upon the term iL ~ incarnation" 
and we close this chapter. Incarnation is the act of 
being clothed with flesh : hence the assumption of 
human nature, by the pre-existent Word, is called 
the incarnation of Christ. That " God was mani- 
fest in the flesh," and that " the Word was made 
flesh and dwelt among us," is plainly asserted in 
the Scriptures ; and this is all we mean by the 
doctrine of the incarnation. But we shall notice 
this doctrine more fully hereafter. 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 17 



CHAPTER III. 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 

Few Arian works are published, in which the 
unity of God is not professedly advocated. It may 
therefore seem strange to the reader that this point 
should be gravely argued in the present treatise. A 
moment's reflection, however, will show the propri- 
ety of this course. The Arian notion of unity is so 
very peculiar, that while both Arians and Trinita- 
rians hold to the unity of God, there is a radical dif- 
ference in their views. The former hold to a unity 
that has respect only to the number of persons in the 
Godhead, so that while they affirm that there is but 
one person in the Supreme Being, they regard 
Christ as God in a subordinate sense, thus virtually 
abandoning the doctrine of Divine unity. Hence, 
when pressed by those texts which declare Christ 
to be God, the usual reply is that he is God, but 
not the self-existent and eternal God. So Mr. Perry, 
an Arian preacher, " I am inclined to believe that 
Christ is God, though he is not the only true God."* 

If we understand this language, it implies that 
there is one finite and dependent God, and one self- 
existent and eternal. This is the doctrine of Mil- 
lard and Kinkade, and of modern Arians generally. 
The point in dispute, then, is, whether there are two 
Gods or but one. We affirm that there is but one 
living and hue God; so that our unity and the Arian 
unity are two distinct things, one referring to the 
number of persons in the Godhead, and the other to 

* Printed Discussion of 1839. 

2* 



,18 THE UNITY OF GOD. 

the riumber of Gods in the universe. So important 
is this point in the present discussion, that the whole 
question turns upon it. If there be a plurality of Gods 7 
a supreme and a subordinate, as Arians assert, then 
there is no unity, and can be no Trinity. But if, 
on the other hand, there is but one God, and Christ 
is God, then it follows that the Father and Son so 
exist as to constitute but one God, and the doctrine 
of the Trinity is true. It is easy therefore to see 
why Arians deny the proper unity of God. They 
are forced to admit that Christ is God in some sense, 
hence they must either hold to two distinct Gods, or 
admit that the Father, Son and Spirit co-exist in one 
Being ; and that, the doctrine of the Trinity is true. 
To avoid Trinitarianism they run to Polytheism, 
and embrace the doctrine of a plurality of Gods, a 
supreme and a subordinate. Against this notion 
we solemnly protest. Though there is as much 
proof of the Deity of Christ and of the Spirit, as of 
the Father himself, yet instead of holding to a plu- 
rality of Gods as do Arians, we hold with St. John 
that "these three are one." So clear are the 
Scriptures on the subject before us, that we scarce 
need refer to any particular passage. Their voice 
is uniform and unequivocal. This grand feature of 
Christianity, which distinguishes it from Paganism, 
stands forth prominently on almost every page of 
Revelation ; and it is obvious that if the Bible re- 
veals two Gods as objects of worship, Jove, and reve- 
rence, we are little better off than the Heathen 
themselves. 

But what saith the law and the testimony — the 
Holy one of Israel % u Before me there was no God 
formed, neither shall there be after me. J, even I y 
am the Lord ; and besides me there is no Saviour." 
" Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 10' 

Redeemer the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am 
the last, and beside me there is no God." '-" Is there 
a God beside me ? yea, there is no God ! I know 
not any." 

Now Arians assert that Christ existed before the 
world began, and that the works of Creation, Provi- 
dence and Redemption, were delegated to him. Of 
course then he existed at the time the above texts 
were written If then he is a distinct God from the 
Father, though in a subordinate sense, how can 
these texts be true ? God here declares that there 
was no other God, nor ever should be ; and* yet 
Arianism affirms that there was at that time another 
and a distinct God, and has been ever since ! It is 
painful to see how small matters are strained to sup- 
port this feature of Arianism — small as it respects 
their weight in the argument though involving an 
amount of guilt that few would be willing to incur. 
We allude to altering of the Holy Scriptures by 
substituting one letter for another, a practice quite 
common among Arian writers. To justify the no- 
tion of two real Gods, it is alleged that Moses, the 
Judges of Israel, idols, &c. were Gods. Moses and 
the Judges were the representatives of God, as his 
executive officers under the theocracy — Moses being 
in a certain sense u as God" to Pharaoh, and the 
Judges as God to the Israelites. Of course they 
possessed no Divinity whatever. But to elevate 
them as far as possible, to keep company with the 
subordinate and finite God of the Arians, they take 
away all the small g's in those passages where they 
are mentioned, and put capitals in their place ; so 
that instead of reading " I said ye are gods — God 
of gods — among the gods," &c, as it is in the Bible, 
it reads " I said ye are Gods — God of Gods — among 
the Gods," &c, as quoted by Arian writers. This, 



20 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

in our view, is effectually altering the Scriptures ; 
and in principle is no better than to change words 
or verses, or even whole chapters. We shall con- 
sider this subject more fully when we come to speak 
of the Deity of Christ. Let it be distinctly under- 
stood, however, that we hold to the unity of God in 
a sense that allows of but one God^ while those who 
for other reasons are called Unitarians, openly avow 
their belief in two distinct Gods — a supreme and a 
subordinate — both of which they love and worship. 
By this theory the proper unity of God is effectually 
denied, and it matters little whether we have two 
Gods or two thousands. 



CHAPTER IV. 

TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

It is a prominent point in the doctrine of tne 
Trinity, that Jesus Christ has two natures. We 
affirm that the pre-existent Word, or Divinity, took 
man's nature, so that in the person of Christ were 
united two whole and perfect natures, humanity 
and Divinity. This Arians deny. They tell us 
that he has but one nature ; that the whole of that 
nature died and was buried ; and thai strictly speak- 
ing, he is neither man nor God. Making him 
equal with Moses and pagan gods, does not affect 
the truth of this assertion. These were finite gods, 
which, to us, were no Gods at all. The doctrine 
of the incarnation, or two natures of Christ, is a 
very important part of the general doctrine of the 
Trinity. Arians are aware of this ; and by them 



TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 21 

nothing is more violently opposed than what they 
are pleased to call "the two nature scheme." In- 
deed, both parties agree that the determination of 
this single question turns the scale. If Christ has 
but one nature, the doctrine of the Trinity is false ; 
but if he has two natures, it is true, Arians them- 
selves being judges. This point, then, should re- 
ceive special attention. We shall first adduce those 
Scriptures in which both natures are mentioned in 
connection, or implied, after which we shall con- 
sider his humanity and Divinity in two distinct 
chapters. 

I. Isa. ix. 6 — " For unto us a child is born, unto 
us a son is given, and the government shall be 
upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be called 
Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the ever- 
lasting Father, the Prince of Peace." In this 
text both natures are distinctly brought to view. 
We have, first, the humanity — the child born, &c. ; 
and, secondly, the Divinity — -the mighty God — the 
everlasting Father. Both these characters could 
not be united in one nature. To say that the son 
born is the everlasting Father, or, that the mighty 
God was born, is a perfect outrage to common 
sense, and little less than blasphemy ; but, to say 
that Christ had two natures, in one of which he 
was a " child," and in the other " the mighty 
God," is perfectly rational and consistent. 

The Arian exposition of this text is in perfect 
keeping with their system in general. Kinkade 
takes it for granted, that there is but one nature, 
and hence that the " mighty God" was born, and 
given. He then infers that Christ is inferior and 
subordinate, because he was born, &c. Now, the 
truth is, his higher nature never was born ; and 
the subordination indicated by birth and childhood, 



22 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

belongs mainly, if not exclusively, to his humanity, 
which alone could be born. In his higher na- 
ture he was " the mighty God," unborn and un- 
originated. 

II. Micah v. 2—" But thou, Bethlehem Eph- 
ratah, though thou be little among the thousands of 
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me 
that is to be Ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth 
have been from of old, from everlasting," or, accord- 
ing to the marginal reading, " from the days of 
eternity." This is a prediction relative to the birth 
of Christ in Bethlehem. See Matt, ii., 4th to 12th 
verses. But, while the birth-place of his humanity 
is so carefully predicted, we are guarded against 
the impression that this was his only nature. He 
was to come forth from Bethlehem, as it respected 
his humanity, being born in this city of David ; 
but, in his higher nature, he had no birth — his go- 
ings forth having been from of old, from the days 
of eternity. 

III. Heb. x. 5 — " Wherefore, when he cometh 
into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou 
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." 
Here we have the person that came into the world, 
which, was a perfect nature before it came, and the 
body prepared for the Divinity, which was another 
nature. 

IV. 1 Pet. iii. 18 — " For Christ also hath once 
suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he 
might bring us to God, being put to death in the 
flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.'' 1 The tt flesh," 
or humanity, is here clearly distinguished from the 
" Spirit," or Divinity. 

V. Rom. ix. 5 — " Whose are the fathers, and of 
whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is 
over all, God blessed forever." The flesh, or hu- 



TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 23 

manity, was of the fathers, that is, of the seed of 
Abraham ; but this w r as true only " as concerning 
the flesh ; for in his higher nature he is u God 
blessed forever." 

VI. Philip, ii. 5, 6, 7—" Let this mind be in 
you, which was also in Christ Jesus : Who, being 
in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be 
equal with God ; but made himself of no reputa- 
tion, and took upon him the form of a servant, and 
was made in the likeness of men." On this text, 
we observe, 

1. That in one nature Christ was in the tt form 
of God." This form cannot mean bodily shape, 
for God is a Spirit, and, therefore, has no body, or 
bodily form. Again — If the form of God was the 
form of his body, as Arians tell us, which form is 
that of a man, then the "form of God" and the 
u form of a servant," would be exactly the same 
thing; and Christ, by taking on him the form of a 
servant, would be only taking the form of God, the 
same which he already had. On this supposition 
the text would be utterly unmeaning. The form 
of God must therefore mean his nature — a nature 
noi assumed, but inherent, as is clear from the 
text. 

2. In view of this " form of God," it is said he 
iC thought it not robbery to be equal with God," that 
is, with the Father. This could not be true of 
any nature short of supreme Divinity. For a 
creature to assume to be equal with the great Je- 
hovah, would be downright robbery and treason ; 
hence, by the "form of God," we must understand 
absolute Divinity. 

3. This person, in the form of God, took upon 
him another " form," which must of course differ 
from the first, namely, the form or nature of a ser- 



24 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

vant. Here, then, we have two distinct " forms" or 
natures — the " form of God" and the " form of a 
servant" — the one equal with God the Father, and 
the other mere humanity, " the likeness of men." 

VII. Heb. ii. 14-17 — "Forasmuch then as the 
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also 
himself likewise took part of the same ; — For verily 
he took not on him the nature of angels ; but he took 
on him the seed of Abraham." Here are two na- 
tures, one of which took the other. The Divinity 
" took on him the seed of Abraham." But it is 
objected, that the seed of Abraham means only the 
body, which is not the whole of human nature. 
We have yet to learn, however, that the children 
of Abraham were mere bodies without souls. 

VIII. Matt. xxii. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45— " While 
the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked 
them, saying, What think ye of Christ ? whose son 
is he ? They say unto him, The son of David. 
He saith unto them, How then doth David in 
Spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto 
my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make 
thine enemies thy footstool ? If David then call 
him Lord, how is he his son ?" The carnal and 
blinded Pharisees were as ignorant of the true 
character of Christ, as they were of the nature of 
his kingdom. Our Lord here endeavors to lead 
them to the truth, and discover to them his two- 
fold nature. That he was the son of David he did 
not deny ; but quotes a passage where David, 
when inspired, calls him Lord or Jehovah. He 
then asks how he could be David's Lord, and also 
his son. To obviate this apparent difficult}^, they 
must acknowledge the doctrine of the incarnation, 
which our Saviour intended to teach. Christ w r as 
David's God and David's son ; but this could not 



TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 25 

be true without two natures. His Divine nature 
was David's God, manifest in the flesh ; while at 
the same time his human nature was " the son of 
David ;" and David knew, being a " prophet," that 
" God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the 
fruit of his loins , according to the flesh, he would 
raise up Christ to sit on his throne." — Actsii. 30. 

IX. Rev. xxii. 16 — Christ says, " I am the root 
and the offspring of David." How could this be 
true if he had but one nature. Could the nature 
that created David spring from him as his off- 
spring ? or that which sprang from David be his 
Creator? The only answer to this question is, 
that Christ had two natures, humanity and Divin- 
ity. His human nature was the " offspring of 
David ;" but his Divinity was the root of David, the 
great Creator of all things. 

X. John xvii. 1 1 — Christ says, " And now I am 
no more in the world ;" but he says again, John 
xiv. 25 — " If a man love me, he will keep my 
words, and my Father will love him, and we will 
come unto him, and make our abode with him." 
How can these sayings be reconciled with the no- 
tion that Christ has but one nature ? The human- 
ity is " no more in the world," having gone up 
on high, to return no more until the general judg- 
ment ; but still Christ can come to, and abide with, 
every obedient Christian. He must therefore have 
two natures, one of which is in heaven, while the 
other is ever-present with his saints. 

XI. The same doctrine is proved from Mark 
xiv. 7, compared with Matt, xxviii. 20. In the 
former Christ says — " Ye have the poor with you 
always — but me ye have not always." In the lat- 
ter, he says, to the same disciples, " Lo, I am with 
you always, even unto the end of the world." How 

3 



26 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 

could he say he was, and was not, always with his 
disciples, if he had but one nature? The answer is 
obvious. In the first passage he spoke of his hu- 
manity, in the second of his Divinity. The form- 
er has long since left the world, but the latter is 
with us always. Blessed be the Lord for a Divine 
and ever-present Saviour ! 

XII. We might easily multiply quotations on 

this point, but it is unnecessary. With the candid, 

the above are sufficient ; and with the obstinate, 

and wilfully blinded, additional labor would be 

thrown away. The doctrine of the two natures of 

Christ, or the incarnation, is found in almost every 

book of the Holy Scriptures ; and is interwoven 

with their very texture throughout. They plainly 

declare that " God was manifest in the flesh" — 

that " God was in Christ," and that u - in him dwelt 

all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." But as in the 

days of St. John, so now, there are those who deny 

this doctrine, and yet complain because we do not 

fellowship them as the children of God. But how 

can we, while it is written, " Every spirit that con 

fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is 

not of God. And this is that spirit of antichrist, 

whereof ye have heard that it should come : and 

even now already is it in the world." — 1 John 

iv. 3. Again — " This is the commandment, That, 

as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should 

walk in it. For many deceivers are entered into 

the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is 

come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an 

antichrist. — If there come any unto you, and bring 

not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, 

neither bid him God speed : for he that biddeth 

him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds." — 2 

John j 6 — 11. 



HUMANITY CF CHRIST. 27 

As it respects the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup- 
per, we see no reason why Arians should ever par- 
take of it, especially in connection with Trinita- 
rians. They deny the doctrine of incarnation, and 
also that of the atonement. We believe both these 
doctrines, and perpetuate the eucharist as a memo- 
rial of our redemption. Now, if we were never re- 
deemed, why use a_ memorial of the atonement? 
If an Arian uses this sacrament at all, it must be 
for other purposes than those contemplated by Tri- 
nitarians. In our opinion, it is solemn mockery 
before God to eat and drink the emblems of our 
Lord's body and blood, while at the same time we 
deny the incarnation and the atonement of Christ. 
On this ground we refuse to commune with Arians. 
If any wish to use the sacraments for other purposes 
than those contemplated in the Scriptures, they 
should do so by themselves, and upon their own re- 
sponsibility. We wish no part or lot in the matter. 



CHAPTER V. 

HUMANITY OF CHRIST, 

Too little importance has been attached to the 
doctrine of Christ's humanity, even by some Trini- 
tarians. By many it has been thought sufficient to 
establish his supreme Divinity : hence, where we 
have a dozen sermons on that point, and page after 
page in our theological works^ we have little or no- 
thing, comparatively, to vindicate his proper hu- 
manity. This we consider a defect in the usual 
method of treating the subject The two natures 



28 HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

stand or fall together. If Christ be not man as well 
as God, then all those Scriptures that speak of his 
inferiority and dependence, must refer to his Divin- 
ity ; and he cannot be the Supreme Being. The 
doctrine of Christ's humanity is therefore, an essen- 
tial link in the golden chain of truth ; and, as 
no chain can be stronger than its weakest link, it is 
quite as important to defend this doctrine, as that of 
his Divinity. Some may have neglected this point, 
from a fear of being suspected of leaning towards 
Socinianism ; but there is no danger of this, so long 
as we keep the idea before the mind, that Christ is 
not only man, but also God. 

Besides the Scriptures that refer to both the na- 
tures of Christ in the same connection, as in the pre- 
ceding chapter, there is a large class that refer ex- 
clusively to his humanity ; and another equally 
numerous that refer solely to his Divinity. Hu- 
manity and Divinity are distinct natures ; hence, if 
Christ is both man and God, he must have two na- 
tures, and the doctrine of the incarnation must be 
true. Modern Arians deny that Christ is either 
man or God. They ridicule the idea of two na- 
tures, and deny that the Scriptures are to be interpret- 
ed upon this principle. So far as we can get at their 
real sentiments, they believe that Christ has one 
compound nature, made up of humanity and Divin- 
ity ; or, in other words, that he took half his nature 
from God, and half from the Virgin Mary. That 
humanity and Divinity are united, we admit ; but 
it is obvious that the union of two natures does not 
destroy those natures. They are still distinct na- 
tures, though not separate. The correctness of this 
view seems to have struck Mr. Millard, with pecu- 
liar force. He saw, that if they were whole and 
perfect natures while separate, they must be so 



HUMANITY OF CHRIST. '29 

when united. Hence, to save his creed, a very nice 
philosophical distinction is invented. He tells us, 
that Christ took half a nature from each of his parents, 
and that these two half natures make up the one 
nature of Christ. " He partook," says he, " of his 
father as. well as his mother, yet not a whole com- 
plete nature from each." — " To say that a son de- 
rives a whole nature from each of his parents, is a 
great absurdity." — u He also took part (not the 
whole) of the same." 

Now it is easy to see that this distinction is not 
only unphilosophical, but absurd. The nature of a 
thing is that assemblage of qualities or attributes 
which are found in it, or belong to it. Hence in 
describing the nature of gold, we name over its pro- 
perties as constituting its nature. We say it is a 
metal, yellow, heavy, ductile, not subject to rust, &c. 
A single particle of gold has all the nature of gold ; a 
single shot has all the nature of lead ; and a dew- 
drop, all the nature of water. On the same princi- 
ple, an infant has a complete human nature, as 
much so as a man, or as all the men on earth. But 
Mr. Millard says, a child does not derive a whole 
nature from each of its parents. Well, how then % 
Do some of the distinguishing attributes of human- 
ity come from one, and some from the other ? Is 
the mortal nature from one and the immortal from 
the other ? or, is consciousness from the father, and 
memory from the mother '? Both parents possess 
a complete human nature, and a perfect nature is 
derived from both ; but as the nature of both parents 
is the same, the offspring has but one nature. A 
shot has all the nature of lead, and yet, if two shot, 
or two hundred, are united, you have but one na- 
ture after all. 

But Mr. M's theory proves too much for him. 
3* 



30 HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

He admits that Mary was human, and God Divine. 
Now, if Christ partook of both these distinct and 
widely different natures, he must have had two na- 
tures ; but if he had half a nature from God, and 
half from Mary, he could have had but half a na- 
ture before the days of his incarnation, and yet, with 
but half a nature, he created the universe, and sus- 
tained it for at least four thousand years ! But this is 
not the worst feature of Mr. M.'s half nature scheme. 
He tells us, in another part of his work, (pp. 108, 
9, 17,) that the half nature of Christ that existed 
before the world began, was actually changed into 
flesh. Now if a spirit can be changed into matter, or 
flesh, of course it is no longer spirit ; and hence 
both halves of Christ's nature must have been flesh. 
He must therefore have been all matter, without 
any spirit whatever 1 How much more rational 
to suppose, that the pre-existent nature remained the 
same, while as the Scriptures assert, " he took on 
him the seed of Abraham," or proper humanity. 
The point of difference is simply this : Arians say 
Christ has but one nature — a nature neither human 
or Divine ; while we assert that he has two natures, 
and is both man and God. We propose to show, 
therefore, in this chapter, that Christ is in one nature, 
truly and properly man, having a human body and 
soul, and all the essential attributes of real humanity. 

I. He was man corporeally. 1. He is of the 
same substance as other men. They are matter, so 
was he. 2. He had the same physical organization 
as other men. We are flesh, blood, &c, " fearfully 
and wonderfully made,'' and so was Christ. Even 
after his resurrection, he said, " Behold my hands 
and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and 
see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see 
me have." 3. He had the innocent habits of man. 



HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 31 

He ate, drank, slept, &c, grew in stature like other 
men, and probably wrought as " the carpenter's son," 
from the time he was twelve years old, till he en- 
tered upon his public ministry at the age of thirty. 
4. He was mortal like other men. Hence he often 
became weary, enduring the sufferings that mor- 
tality is heir to, and finally finished his life upon 
the cross. 

The same language is used by the inspired 
writer in describing his death, that is used in refer- 
ence to other men. Of Abraham and Ishmael it is 
said, " they gave up the ghost." Job says, " man 
dieth and wasteth away ; yea, man giveth up the 
ghost, and where is he V So also in recording the 
death of Christ ; it is written that " he gave up the 
ghost." Thus 

61 He dies and suffers as a man," 

and gives the fullest evidence that, so far as his ma- 
terial or corporeal being was concerned, he pos- 
sessed a whole and perfect human nature. 

II. He was man mentally. By this we mean 
that he had the intellectual nature of man, or, in 
other words, a human soul. This all Arians deny. 
While some destroy his spiritual nature altogether, 
others say that the pre-existent nature occupied his 
body as a soul, and there was no human soul 
whatever. But it is evident that Christ took per- 
fect humanity ; a soul as well as a body, for, 

1. The Scriptures speak of the soul of Christ as 
in no way differing, in its essential nature, from 
the souls of other men. Hence we read, " his 
soul was not left in hell — my soul is sorrowful," &c 
It is certain, therefore, that Christ had a soul, a term 
never applied to angels or to super-angelic beings. 

2. This soul had all the attributes, powers, and 



32 HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

susceptibilities of other human souls. There is 
not a single characteristic by which a human soul 
may be known, that is not found in the soul of 
Christ. He had will, perception, sensation, con- 
sciousness, memory, reason, love, joy, sorrow, and 
every thing by which we may distinguish a human 
soul. We must therefore conclude, either that the 
pre-existent nature of Christ and a human soul are 
precisely alike, or else that he possessed a human 
soul. The Trinitarian belief is, that the intellec- 
tual nature of Christ, which was so precisely like 
the soul of man, was really and properly a human 
soul in connection with the human body. 

3. But there are things affirmed of the soul of 
Christ, that could not be true of his pre-existent 
nature. We have no evidence that a super-angelic 
being could be " sorrowful even unto death," much 
less that it could "increase in wisdom" by a so- 
journ on earth, as is affirmed of Christ. Arians 
admit, that Christ had wisdom enough to create the 
universe four thousand years before his advent; 
and yet the Scriptures say, he " increased in wis- 
dom" while on earth. Could that intellect which 
was wise enough to arrange the wondrous ma- 
chinery of nature, and create seraphim and cher- 
ubim, angels and men, grow wiser by visiting our 
little world which he had created four thousand 
years before ? Could he learn of men, whose in- 
tellectual powers he himself had made? 

We recollect urging this consideration in a dis- 
cussion with an Arian minister several years ago. 
In reply, it was remarked, that in his advent to our 
world, Christ laid aside or surrendered up his wis- 
dom ; and in proof, the passage was quoted in which 
it is said, "in his humiliation his judgment was 
taken away ;" as if judgment here meant knowledge^ 



HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 33 

instead of justice or equity, which was denied him at 
the bar of Pilate. 

But such degrading notions of Christ can never 
grow out of the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ 
had a human soul as well as a human body, and, 
in connection with these, " dwelt all the fulness of 
the Godhead." Hence in reference to his human 
soul, it could be said he "increased in wisdom;" 
while of his Divinity it is said he had " all the 
treasures of wisdom and knowledge." 

III. Christ was man morally. True he had not 
man's depraved nature ; but this is no part of hu- 
manity itself. Adam was a man before he fell, and 
Christ could be human, though perfectly holy. He 
was a moral being, capable of, and subject to, moral 
government ; u made of a woman, made under the 
law;" but, being pure like Adam in Eden, he 
needed not to repent or be regenerated, nor will he 
require to be judged in the day of general judg- 
ment. He is therefore a fit residence for the Eter- 
nal Word, who is to come in connection with his 
immortalized body to judge the quick and the dead. 
Like Eve, before the fall, he was tempted ; " yet 
without sin." As a human soul he had a God ; 
was dependent upon God ; obeyed God ; belonged 
to God ; grew in favor with God ; worshipped God ; 
prayed to God ; and ascended to God — a human 
soul and immortal body — the " first fruits of them 
that slept." 

IV. Relationships are referred to in the Scrip- 
tures, as existing between Christ and man, that 
could not have existed without proper humanity. 
Christ was " the Son of God," as it respects his pre- 
existent nature, (as the term Son is already defined,) 
but at the same time that he was " the Son of God," 
he was " the Son of man." This was a common 



34 HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

name for man. Ezekiel is called the " son of man" 
about ninety times in the Scriptures, and our Lord 
about eighty-four. When God addresses Ezekiel 
as a " son of man," this title is understood to desig- 
nate his origin — to keep before the mind his true 
character and mortality, distinguishing him from 
the higher orders of intelligences. The relation- 
ship fully implies the humanity of Ezekiel. What 
then are we to understand by the phrase, when 
Christ is called the " Son of man ?" Does it not 
clearly imply his humanity % In what sense could 
he have been " the Son of man," without proper 
humanity? The same conclusion would follow 
from the fact, that Christ was the " Son of David," 
which he could not have been without real hu- 
manity. < 

V. Christ was known as man by those who lived 
at the time of his advent, and had the best opportu- 
nity for obtaining correct information respecting 
him. Hence we read — " This man receiveth sin- 
ners" — " never man spake like this man" — " come 
see the man which told me all things" — " a man 
that is called Jesus made clay" — " if this man were 
not of God he could do nothing," &c. It is evident, 
from such language, that he was considered as pos- 
sessed of real humanity, by those who saw and heard 
him. 

VI. The inspired writers say Christ was man. 
" Behold the man whose name is the Branch" — " a 
man of sorrows" — u after me cometh a man" — " but 
this man when he had offered one sacrifice" — " this 
man hath an unchangeable priesthood" — " a man ap- 
proved of God" — " through this man is preached 
unto you the forgiveness of sins" — " grace which is 
by one man Jesus Christ" — " by man came also the 
resurrection from the dead," &c. Now, if Christ 



HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 35 

were not in one nature man, why do the Scriptures 
call him so ? and what could have been better cal- 
culated to mislead us, than the use of such language ? 

VII. Our Lord himself asserts his humanity. He 
says, " Had I not done among them the works which 
none other man did, they had not had sin." Again, 
" Now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you 
the truth." Thus the Saviour endorses the opinions 
expressed by his Prophets and Apostles, and by 
others who saw and heard him, by declaring, in 
the most plain and unequivocal manner, that he was 
" man ;" or that he possessed a human nature. 

VIII. Without humanity Christ could not have 
made an atonement for sin. The law was broken 
by man, and the penalty was due to man, and must 
fall upon humanity, though it might be connected 
with Divinity. But Christ did make an atonement 
for us. a The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity, 
of us all" — " he hath borne our griefs, and carried 
our sorrows" — " he was wounded for our transgres- 
sions" — " he was bruised for our iniquities : the 
chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with 
his stripes we are healed." He must, therefore, 
have been possessed of proper humanity. 

IX. According to the law of Moses, (Lev. xxv. 
25,) the redeemer of a forfeited inheritance must be 
a relative or kinsman. Now the human family are 
represented as having forfeited the heavenly inheri- 
tance, and Christ comes forth as their Redeemer. If, 
then, the antitype answers to the type, Christ must 
have been our kinsman or relative, and consequent- 
ly of our nature. " Christ hath redeemed us from 
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." 
and "he is not ashamed to call us brethren." 

X. Christ was " in all points tempted like as we 
are." — How could this be true without humanity? 



36 HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

There are a thousand temptations peculiar to hu- 
manity alone ; and, indeed, we know not that any- 
other nature can be tempted at all. We know not 
that devils or lost souls can be tempted ; and as to 
the righteous dead, and holy angels, we have rea- 
son to believe they are now forever beyond the 
reach of temptation. ' If so, a super-angelic being 
certainly could not be tempted. But Christ was 
" in all points tempted like as we are f therefore 
he must have had a nature that could be tempted, 
or, in other words, he must have had a human na- 
ture. 

XI. It was necessary that Christ should possess 
perfect humanity, in order to demonstrate, in his 
own person, the possibility of human resurrection. 
In the 15th chapter of First Corinthians, Paul ar- 
gues the general resurrection of the human family, 
from the resurrection of Christ. Now, on the sup- 
position that Christ had not perfect humanity, no- 
thing could have been more fallacious than the 
Apostle's argument. If he had but one nature, and 
that nature was above angels, it was sophistical in 
the extreme to refer to him as a specimen of human 
resurrection ; as his resurrection furnishes no proof 
whatever that any human being ever has risen, or 
ever will arise from the dead. Had there been 
Arians at Corinth, they might have replied, " We 
know that Christ rose, but he was super-angelic, 
and had no human nature ; therefore, his resurrec- 
tion is no proof that human beings will, or can 
arise." 

But the Apostle considered him a true specimen 
of human resurrection — a pledge and proof of the 
resurrection of all men. He must, therefore, have 
possessed perfect humanity. Again ; Paul speaks of 
Christ, as " the first fruits of them that slept." The 



HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 37 

" first fruits," literally, consisted of the first ripe 
fruits, or grain, that was gathered from the ap- 
proaching vintage or harvest ; and was presented 
as a thank-offering to the Lord. They were of 
course of the same nature of the harvest that was to 
follow. Now Christ is the " first-fruits of them that 
slept," and the harvest that is to follow is the gene- 
ral resurrection. But if Christ had not a human 
nature, nothing could have been more unfortunate 
than the Apostle's metaphor. Could the " first 
fruits" be of one nature, and the harvest of another ? 
Could Christ be the first-fruits from the dead, un- 
less he had the same nature of the dead ? It is evi- 
dent, therefore, that he was man as well as God, and 
in that humanity he entered the tomb, conquered 
death in his own dominions, and " triumphed o'er 
the grave." 

' ; Then first humanity triumphant, 
Passed the crystal ports of light, 
And seized eternal youth." 

XII. We might argue the humanity of Christ 
from his character as Mediator; — from the fact 
that he is our pattern or example ; and from various 
other considerations ; but if the above arguments 
fail to establish the truth, it would be useless to add 
others. We have shown that he was man, corpo- 
really, mentally, and morally. We have also proved 
his humanity from the fact, that he was the " son of 
man" and the "son of David." He was known as, 
man by those best acquainted with him while on 
earth — called a man by the Prophets and Apostles 
— calls himself a man — suffered the penalty of the 
law due only to man — is our Redeemer, and there- 
fore our relative and brother — was tempted as none 
but men could be tempted — and is adduced by St. 
4 



38 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

Paul as a specimen and proof of human resurrec- 
tion. We are constrained, therefore, to believe that 
he had a whole and perfect human nature, and to 
adopt the sentiment of 1 Tim. ii. 5. — " There is one 
God, and one Mediator between God and men, the 
man Christ Jesus." 



CHAPTER VI 

DEITY OF CHRIST. 

Having shown that Jesus Christ is really and 
properly man, possessing a whole and perfect hu- 
man nature, we shall now proceed to prove that he 
is verily and really God. On this point we wish to 
be very plain and explicit. When we say that 
Christ is God, we do not mean that his humanity is 
God, or that flesh and bones are Divinity ; but that 
in union with the human body and soul of Christ, 
there existed the eternal " Word ;" the second per- 
son in the Godhead ; of the same substance, power. 
and eternity with the Father and the Holy Ghost. 
Hence when we say that Christ is God, we refer 
solely to his pre-existent nature. 

Neither do we consider him a created and finite, 
a subordinate God, as do Arians ; but the Supreme 
Being : Jehovah ; the Creator and Sovereign of the 
Universe. On these points we have often been 
misrepresented. Arians have charged us with be- 
lieving that Christ's humanity was Divine, and 
have then urged that according to Trinitarians, God 
was born, carried down into Egypt, baptized by 
John, &c, This argument may be found in almost 






DEITY OF CHRIST. 39 

every Arian work, and is very popular with Arian 
preachers. 

Now, if we asserted that Christ had but one na- 
ture, which nature was Divine ; or that having two 
natures his humanity was Divine ; the above ob- 
jection would be valid. But if, as we constantly 
maintain, Christ had two natures, humanity and 
Divinity, then th*e former could be born, carried 
into Egypt, baptized and crucified, without predi- 
cating any of these of Divinity. 

Although we have already stated the Arian doc- 
trine in a summary manner on page 12, it may be 
important more fully to set forth their views of the 
origin and character of Christ in the present con- 
nection. In so doing they will be allowed to speak 
for themselves. Kinkade says, " the Mediator is 
ten thousand times greater than all the men on 
earth and all the angels in heaven, and the next 
greatest being in the universe to God the Father" — 
p. 38. "I think Christ a created being 11 — p. 133. 
" The plain truth is, that the pre-existent Christ 
was the first creature that was born into existence" 
— p. 117. " He is God's Son, not in the sense that 
Isaac was the son of Abraham, bnt in the sense 
that Adam was the son of God." Here it will be 
perceived that Mr. K. is endeavoring to account for 
the origin of Christ, as well as to determine his rel- 
ative dignity and true character ; and in this effort 
he asserts that he came into being in two ways — 
by creation and by birth. If he had said that God 
the Father created Christ before the world began, 
and left the matter there, we should all have under- 
stood him ; but when he talks of the pre-existent 
nature of Christ as having been "born into exist- 
ence," we know not what he means. Does he 
really think the pre-existent nature of Christ was 



40 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

u born" in heaven, before the world began ? Is this 
what Arians mean, when they assert that Christ 
was " brought forth," or that he was a " natural 
son," before time began? This seems to be the 
fact. They think he has but one nature, super- 
human and super-angelic, and before men or an- 
gels ; but that he is, after all, but a creature ; and 
that he originated by being " brought forth" or 
" born into existence," before the foundation of the 
world. 

If the reader should suspect a distinction between 
creation and birth, he must took to the Arian phi- 
losophy to unlock the " mystery." Trinitarianism 
furnishes no key to it. On the other hand, this 
singular theory involves us in a labyrinth of diffi- 
culties. Birth always implies parents and natural 
generation, (the conception of the virgin Mary ex- 
cepted,) hence to say that the pre-existent nature of 
Christ was " born" in heaven before the creation 
of the world, would be to assert by implication that 
there is a family of Divinities in heaven— Father, 
Mother, and Son ! This we should call Poly- 
theism. 

But it may be asked, " Do they not hold to the 
Divinity of Christ ? They say that they do, nay 
more, that they believe him to be all-Divine." 
Very true, and yet they deny the proper Divinity 
of Christ. They use the term " divine" in an ac- 
commodated sense, as we call a sound theologian a 
divine ; or merely to signify purity or holiness ; but 
when the question of Christ's proper Deity is pro- 
posed, they steadfastly deny him this honor. They 
use the term divine, as they apply it to Christ, to 
signify something falling infinitely short of the 
Godhead — something finite, inferior, and dependent. 
In this sense only do they admit the Divinity of 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 41 

Christ. But to return. The principal arguments 
in favor of the Arian scheme, are drawn from Col. 
i. 15, and Rev. iii. 15. In one of these passages, 
Christ is called " the first-born of every creature ;" 
and in the other, u the beginning of the creation 
of God." From these it is inferred, that Christ 
must have been created. When it is shown that 
Christ is both man and God, from the general lan- 
guage of the Scriptures, the reply is, " he is called 
man, but he was not really man ; he is called God," 
&c. ; but, when only two passages are to be found 
in all the Bible, that speak of Christ as a creature, 
the evidence is considered conclusive. Suppose he 
was plainly called a creature, (which is not the case 
in either of the above texts,) would it be certain, 
therefore, that he was literally created ? The lan- 
guage is figurative : and the import of both texts is 
the same. The " first-born" among the Jews were 
considered as superior ; and were entitled to privi- 
leges which others had not. Hen%e, in figurative 
language, the terms " first-born" or " beginning" 
would often be used as a title of superiority, and in 
this sense was applied to God himself. The Jews 
term Jehovah becovo shel olam, the first-bom of all the 
world, or of all the creation ; to signify his having 
created or produced all things. In the same sense 
Christ is called " the first-born of every creature," 
" the beginning of the creation of God," to sig- 
nify his superiority ; and to point him out as the 
pre-existent and eternal Author of all things. 
Hence it is said, " he is before all things, and by 
him all things consist." Again — It is a well 
known principle in the interpretation of any writ- 
ten document, that if a sentence seems to conflict 
with the general tenor, it must be so understood, as 
to harmonize with the main design. The same 
4* 



42 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

rule must be respected in the interpretation of the 
Scriptures. If then, there are two passages that 
seem to represent Christ as a creature, and two hun- 
dred that represent him as the uncreated Word, the 
Creator of all things ; we must interpret the few so 
that they will agree with the many. On this prin- 
ciple we must either understand the above texts as 
we have explained them, or set aside scores of 
others that assert his proper Divinity. We are 
obliged, therefore, to reject the notion that Christ is 
a creature, not only because there are but two pas- 
sages that seem to favor it, but because those pas- 
sages are figurative; are easily interpreted differ- 
ently, and must be so interpreted, or contradict more 
than two hundred other passages, some of which 
we shall presently adduce. 

In establishing the supreme Divinity of Jesus 
Christ, it will be necessary to pursue, to a great ex- 
tent, the usual course. The attributes predicated 
of him in the Holy Scriptures, are the best evidence 
of his Divinity. Our knowledge of things in the 
natural world is confined to their qualities. We 
can discover a difference between marble and silver, 
not because we see a difference in their essence, 
but from a difference in their attributes, such as 
weight, hardness, color, &c. For example, if two 
pieces of metal are put into our hand, in order that 
we may tell what they are, we feel their weight 
or hardness, look at their color, perhaps heat them 
or hammer them to develope their qualities, and 
then judge. When we find a substance that pos- 
sesses all the attributes of gold, and no others, we 
identify it as gold ; and the evidence arising from 
the presence of those attributes, has all the strength 
of demonstration. What we have said of this evi- 
dence, as it respects material things, is equally true 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 43 

in the universe of mind. We know nothing* of 
spiritual beings beyond their attributes. Of their 
essence we are totally ignorant. Conformably to 
the same principle God has revealed himself to 
man. Of his essence as a spirit we know nothing ; 
but the Scriptures attribute to him certain properties, 
or qualities, usually called attributes, which belong 
to him alone, and distinguish him from all other 
beings. By these attributes or perfections we be- 
come, to some extent, acquainted with his nature. 
Were there no essential attributes which distin- 
guish the Divine Being from every thing else, 
there could be no God, or if there were, we should 
be unable to distinguish him from the works of 
his hands. If, then, we find from the Scriptures 
that certain attributes belong to God, and to him 
only, and at the same time find that all these attri- 
butes belong to Christ, the conclusion is irresistible, 
that Christ and God are one Being. Arians are 
aware of the conclusiveness of this method of rea- 
soning, hence they labor to show, either that the 
attributes of God do not belong to him alone, or if 
they do, that they are not found in Jesus Christ. 
They tell us that two beings may have " all power" 
or omnipotence at the same time ; that omnipres- 
ence belongs even to the Devil, and is not peculiar 
to God ; and that neither omniscience or eternity be- 
long to Christ at all. 

All these points will be duly considered as we 
proceed. For the present we wish only to show 
the principle on which we conduct our reasoning 
upon the attributes of Christ — a principle which 
will lead us infallibly to the truth in all our re- 
searches, whether in the material or spiritual world. 

There are certain attributes which belong to God 
only. To deny this, would be to contradict both 



44 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

philosophy and revelation. Now we affirm that 
the same attributes that belong solely to the Su- 
preme Being, are found also in Jesus Christ. If 
these two points can be established, the Deity of 
Christ must necessarily follow. 

I. God is a Spirit without body or parts. 
This is denied by Arians generally. Most of them 
believe there are two bodies in Heaven, namely, 
the body of God, and the body of Christ — that 
God is literally seated on a throne, and that Christ 
sits at his right hand. Kinkade has a chapter of 
fifteen pages, to show that God has a body like 
man. Chad wick says he is " prepared to defend 1 * 
this sentiment ; and Elder G. Fancher says, " God 
has a body, eyes, ears, hands, feet, &c, just as we 
have." Millard evidently holds to the same creed, 
and Elder L. Perry says, in a letter in our posses- 
sion, " I believe he is a body, sir." Kinkade says, 
" ears, hands, and eyes, are part of an intelligent 
ruler, and if God have none of these he cannot 
hear, handle, nor see us." 

To show that God has " nearly all the members 
of the human body," he quotes the following texts : 
— " The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, 
and his ears are open unto them that cry. The 
face of the Lord is against them that do evil. I 
will turn my hand upon thee. He shall gather 
the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bo- 
som. His garment was white as snow, and the hair 
of his head like the fine wool ; his throne was like 
the fiery flame and his wheels as burning fire.' 7 
From these it is inferred that God has eyes, ears, 
face, hands, arms, bosom, garments or clothing, 
head, hair, &c. But if these texts are to be under- 
stood literally, we must not stop here. We must 
not only represent God as resembling an aged man : 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 45 

but as actually riding in a carriage, and gathering 
the lambs in his bosom ! Instead of understanding 
figurative language as such, Arians make it all 
literal ; and thus originate some of the most absurd 
notions, that were ever uttered in any Christian 
land. 

In figurative language the eye sometimes de- 
notes wisdom, or providential care, the ear atten- 
tion, and the hand strength ; but if we were to 
speak of" the strong arm of the law" in the hearing 
of an Arian, he might infer that the law had an 
arm, and perhaps " nearly all the members of the 
human body." This theory represents God as in- 
capable of seeing or hearing without the medium 
of ears and eyes ! But does sound go from earth 
to heaven ? and does God hear a secret prayer with 
natural ears, and a thousand of them at the same 
time '? If God sees with natural eyes, can he see 
all around him or on the opposite side of the earth ? 
It may be wrong to dwell upon such palpable non- 
sense, and we drop the subject by briefly stating 
two objections to the Arian sentiment. 

1 . To give God a body is to contradict one of the 
'plainest declarations of the word of God. Christ 
says, " God is a spirit," and " a spirit hath not flesh 
and bones." Now, if a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones, of course it can have no eyes, ears, hands, 
or feet, or any members or parts of a material body. 
By body we always understand matter in some form, 
as opposed to spirit. The term is applicable to no- 
thing but matter ; therefore if God is a spirit, he 
cannot be matter ; and consequently has no body 
or parts. On the other hand, to assert that God 
" is a body," is to make out a material God, and to 
deny that God is a spirit. Hence this feature of 
modern Arianism, is no better than Atheism. But 



46 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

Arians tell us that God's body is a " spiritual body," 
by which they mean a sort of body that is nothing 
but spirit after all. This is an unscriptural inven- 
tion. A spiritual body is a human body immor- 
talized. Hence it is said of the human body, " It 
is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" 
— 1 Cor. xv. 44. The material body of Christ 
was, therefore, a spiritual body after the resurrec- 
tion, and yet it had flesh and bones, and was matter 
as much as it was before. All bodies will be spi- 
ritual after the resurrection, and yet they will all 
be material. It is useless, therefore, to assert that 
God's body is a spiritual body, for if this be true 
he must be matter and not spirit, and Christ must 
stand corrected by Arians. 

2. To give God a body is to deny his omnipresence. 
Hence Arians generally follow Kinkade, and deny 
that God is every where present. He is very frank 
in the avowal of this doctrine, as may be seen by 
consulting his book, p. 157. If God is a body, of 
course he cannot be every where present. It can- 
not, -therefore, be true that he " fills heaven and 
earth," as he has declared ; — that " in him we live, 
move, and have our being ;" or that he " filleth all 
in all." We must, then, either disbelieve those 
Scriptures that ascribe universal presence to God, or 
reject the notion of a material Deity. We prefer 
the latter. God is revealed to us as an omnipresent 
God ; and, as before said, any theory that robs him 
of his spiritual nature, and consequently of his at- 
tributes, is no better than Atheism itself. " God is 
pure spirit, unconnected with bodily form or organs, 
the invisible God whom no man hath seen or can 
see, an immaterial, incorruptible substance, an im- 
mense mind, or intelligence, self-acting, self-moving, 
wholly above the perceptions of bodily sense, free 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 47 

from the imperfections of matter, and all the infirmi- 
ties of corporeal beings, far more excellent than any 
finite and created spirits, and therefore styled " the 
Father of spirits," " the God of the spirits of all flesh," 

If God is a spirit, he is not matter or body, and 
consequently has no parts. Nothing can have parts 
that is not susceptible of division ; for a part is such 
only in reference to a whole of which it is a part ; 
and always implies divisibility. Spirit is not divisi- 
ble, and consequently has no parts. Hence Ave 
never speak of half a spirit, half a joy, or half a 
sorrow. If, then, " God is a spirit," he is necessa- 
rily incapable of division, and must be " without 
body or parts." 

II. God js the real and only Creator. The 
Scriptures ascribe the work of creation to God and 
to Christ : and from this we argue that Christ is 
God, " manifest in the flesh." Arians are therefore 
obliged to deny the work of creation to one or the 
other of these, or to admit Christ's Divinity. Ac- 
cordingly they usually assert that the Father never 
created any thing, except the Son ; and that Christ 
created all things as God's representative or agent. 
It will be necessary, therefore, to show, in the first 
place, that God is the real and only Creator. 

1. Moses says, " In the beginning God created 
the heavens and the earth." David says, " The 
heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma- 
ment sheweth his handy work" — that the heavens 
are h the work of his fingers." Paul says, " He 
that built all things is God — the living God that 
made heaven, and earth, and sea, and all things 
therein." 

The whole account of creation clearly shews that 
God alone is the Creator. u And God said, Let 
there be light : and there was light." " He spake. 



48 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

and it was done." " And God said. Let the earth 
bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, 
and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his 
kind : and it was so." " And on the seventh day 
God ended his work which he had made ; and he 
rested on the seventh day from all his work which 
he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, 
and sanctified it ; because that in it he had rested 
from all his work which God created and made." 
Who would suppose, from this account, that an in- 
ferior being, altogether distinct from God, was the 
true Creator? 

2. But at the same time that the Scriptures teach 
that God, and God alone, is the Creator of all things, 
thej^ teach that Christ created all things. " All things 
were made by him, and without him was not any- 
thing made that was made." " For by him were all 
things created that are in heaven and that are in 
earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, 
or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things 
were created by him, and for him. And he is be- 
fore all things, and by him all things consist." 
Now, as the Scriptures teach that God created all 
things himself, and yet affirm that Christ created 
all things, it follows that Christ is the God spoken 
of by Moses, " manifest in the flesh." 

3. In reply to this argument, it is asserted, as 
above stated, that Christ, a creature, created all 
things as " God's agent;" and hence, that God and 
Christ may both be considered as Creators, God as 
the principal, and Christ as the agent. But this 
agency scheme is liable to the following objec- 
tions : — 

(1.) There is not the least vestige of any such 
doctrine in all the Bible. 

(2.) It directly contradicts the account of creation 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 49 

as given by Moses in the book of Genesis. Here 
the work of creation is attributed to God alone, 
without any reference to a finite and created agent. 

(3.) If Christ created all things as God's agent, 
then God is not in reality the Creator ; for he never 
created anything. We shall then be bound to the 
conclusion, that God " said" by an agent, " saw" 
by an agent, "blessed" by an agent, talked to 
Adam and Eve by an agent, and, to cap the climax, 
that he " rested" on the seventh day, because his 
agent had finished his work ; or, worse still, that 
he rested by an agent. Absurd as this may seem, 
it necessarily follows if the agency scheme be true , 
and the work of creation was the work of a crea- 
ture, and not the work of God. Of course, then, 
God did not create the heavens and the earth, and 
is not in reality the Creator of all things. 

(4.) A being that can create a spire of grass, can 
have no limit to his power. Now, if God has an 
ao-ent who created the material universe, and all the 
angels of light, he is of course, omnipotent, and 
there are two beings of infinite power. But this is 
impossible ; and we are obliged to conclude, that 
Christ is not an agent, but the omnipotent God 
himself, the Creator of all things. 

(5.) If Christ created all things as God's agent, 
he must have created them for God ; as an agent 
never transacts business for himself, but for his em- 
ployer. But the Scriptures declare, that " all things 
were made by him and for him" therefore he could 
not have been an agent creating for another. 

(6.) This agency scheme represents Christ as 
creating himself. True, Kinkade says, " he is per- 
haps the only being that God ever made without 
doing it ithrough an agent or instrument," but 
this u perhaps" theory does not do away the logi- 
5 



50 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

cal consequence of the agency scheme. Other 
Arians, much wiser than Kinkade, endorse the 
whole system, and deny that God can create with- 
out an agent. Rev. L. Perry says, "for God to 
work without means is contrary to the known laws 
of his operations." According to this plan, then, 
Christ must have been created first, to act as God's 
agent in creating the rest. But God cannot work 
" without means" by which Mr. P. means an agent, 
and yet there was no agent. Who then created 
Christ ? God had no " means" and could not "work 
without them ;" therefore, God did not create him. 
If, then, he was created at all, he must have created 
himself. 

On the supposition that Christ was a creature, 
we can prove from the Scriptures that he created 
himself. It is said, " All things were made by him, 
and without him was not any thing made that was 
made." Now, if Christ is a " thing," or creature, 
he must have been made by himself ; for " all things 
were made by him." Again — " Without him was 
not anything made that was made." But if Christ 
was " made," as Kinkade affirms, he was made by 
the power of Christ, for this text says, nothing that 
was made was made without him. If, then, he was 
made at all, he made himself. But as this is im- 
possible, we must conclude that the agency scheme 
is imaginary, and that Christ the u Word," was 
never made, but is the eternal and infinite Crea- 
tor. 

(7.) Christ is represented as "upholding all 
things by the word of his power," and we are told, 
that " by him all things consist." Now, Arianism 
teaches, that Christ is God's agent; has but one na- 
ture ; and that the whole of that nature actually 
died and was buried. Who then upheld all things 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 51 

while the agent was dead ? Were the affairs of the 
universe managed by a dead being, confined in the 
tomb of Joseph ? If it be said that God took the 
helm of government while the agent was dead, then 
government and preservation have been shifted 
from Christ to God, and back again to Christ ; and 
God has been at work without an agent. If neither 
held the reins, then chance is as good as direction, 
and the strongest arguments against Atheism are 
overthrown. Such are the absurdities of error. The 
difficulties of the Arian creed have given birth to a 
scheme which throws the infinite Jehovah into the 
background, and ascribes the glory of creation to a 
finite creature ; — a creature that was mortal and 
actually died ! We have no way to avoid the con- 
tradictions and absurdities of this modern invention, 
but to adhere closely to the old-fashioned and scrip- 
tural doctrine, that " In the beginning God created 
the heavens and the earth." 

4. We hold, with Moses, that God created all 
things, and with John and Paul, that Christ created 
all things. But instead of making one the princi- 
pal, and the other an agent, we believe the " God" 
of Moses, and the " Word " of John, are the same 
Being : for Paul says, " God was manifest in the 
flesh," and John says, " the Word was God." This 
doctrine agrees with the Mosaic account of creation ; 
harmonizes with the New Testament account ; as- 
cribes the glory of creation to God, to whom it be- 
longs ; and instead of making Christ a finite mor- 
tal, who, after having created himself, created the 
universe, gives him his true scriptural character, 
as " the true God and eternal life." The sum of 
the entire argument is this : God created ail things 
absolutely and alone ; but the pre-existent Word, 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 

or Christ, created all things, not as an agent, but for 
himself; therefore, the Word, or Christ, is God. 
III. The Deity of Christ follows from the 

FACT THAT HE IS THE ETERNAL BeINO. 

1. God, and God only, is eternal. He declares 
that he is " the first and the last," and is styled 
u the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity." 
He fills the whole round of boundless duration, be- 
ing unoriginated, and without beginning or end. 
None but Atheists will deny this doctrine. It 
is equally true that no being but God is eternal ; as 
all creatures had a beginning, and consequently 
did not exist before that beginning. If, then, it can 
be shown, that Christ is eternal, it cannot but be 
true that he is verily and really God. This is one 
of the most difficult points Arians have to manage. 
We have heard the same persons say he was nei- 
ther created or eternal. Most Arians are afraid to 
say whether he had a beginning or not. Some ad- 
mit the eternity of Christ, and yet deny his proper 
Divinity. Elder O. E. Morrel says, " he is of the 
same eternal nature and essence with the Father," 
and yet he believes he is no more Divine, properly 
speaidng, than an angel or a man. Mr. Perry also 
says, " he is not created," and yet denies that he is 
Eternal, or truly Divine. Leaving these teachers 
to agree among themselves, if they can, we shall 
proceed to prove the eternity of Christ. 

1. In one nature Christ existed before the time 
of his advent. John says, " He was before me," 
and yet John was born six months before the 
humanity of Christ. Paul says, " Neither let us 
tempt Christ as they also tempted ;" but this temp- 
tation was 1,400 years before Christ came in the 
flesh. Christ says, " Before Abraham was, I am ;" 
and speaks of the glory he had with the Father, 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 53 

" befoi'e the world began? These sayings cannot be 
true of the humanity of Christ, for that did not ex- 
ist before creation, before Abraham or -Moses, or 
even before John. There must, therefore, have been 
another and a distinct nature that did exist " in the 
beginning." Most Arians admit the pre-existence 
of Christ ; but instead of holding to two natures, 
they hold that the pre-existent Word was made 
flesh, not by being clothed with humanity, but by 
actual change of substance ; the Spirit becoming 
flesh, being born, dying, &c. 

We have already noticed this theory in Chapter 
F., but we may here add, (1.) That the Scriptures 
plainly shew in what sense " the Word was made 
flesh ;" namely, that 4: he took on him the seed of 
Abraham." (2.) It is not possible for a spirit to be- 
come matter and die. It is therefore certain, that 
no such transformation ever took place, and that 
Christ's Divinity existed before the world began, 
and is entirely distinct from his humanity. 

2. Christ says, " I am the first and the last." If 
he was the first, there was no being in existence be- 
fore him. He is consequently the oldest of all 
beings, and must be eternal. But the Father says, 
(Isa. xliv. 40,) " I am the first," &c. God sa\rs he is 
the first, and Christ says he is the first ; and, as they 
cannot both be first as two distinct beings, they 
must be merely distinct persons in the same eternal 
Being or Godhead. 

3. The Prophet Micah says of Christ, " His go- 
ings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," 
or u from the days of eternity." Paul says, "he is 
before all things" — " the same yesterday, to-day, and 
forever." John says, " In the beginning was the 
Word." Ii he was in the beginning, he must 
have existed before the beginning ; if before the 

5* 



54 DEITY OP CHRIST. 

beginning, he must have been without beginning, 
and that which is without beginning must be 
eternal. Christ must therefore be eternal. 

4. To deny the eternity of the Son, would be to 
deny the eternity of the Father. One relation can 
be no older than the other. If there was a time 
when the Son did not exist, there was no Father at 
that time ; as the Father is such only in reference 
to the Son. The Father was not the Father be^ 
fore the Son existed ; therefore, if the Son is not 
eternal, the Father is not. 

Now, as God is the only Eternal Being in the 
universe, and Jesus Christ is eternal, it follows that 
Christ is the Eternal Being ; the God whose throne 
is forever and ever. 

IV. God, and God only, is omnipotent. — 1. He 
styles himself " the Almighty God," a title that 
clearly imports his unlimited power. His omnipo- 
tence is displayed in the work of creation, for " he 
spake, and it was done ; he commanded, and it 
stood fast." At his word a thousand worlds start 
from the slumbers of non-existence, and the mighty 
wheels of nature begin to roll. Another fiat, and 
earth, sea, and sky, are full of life. " The pillars 
of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his re- 
proof." " He hath measured the waters in the hol- 
low of his hand, meted out the heavens with a span, 
comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, 
and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills 
in a balance." " He shaketh the earth out of her 
place, and the pillars thereof tremble ; he command- 
eth the sun, and it riseth not : and sealeth up the 
stars." " Lo, these are but parts of his ways, but 
how little a portion is known of him, and the thun- 
der of his power, who can understand ?" 

2. But while the Scriptures are thus explicit 



" 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 55 

asserting the infinite power of Jehovah, they are 
equally clear in teaching the omnipotence of Christ. 
He is called the " Most Mighty," Psa. xlv. 3 ; " the 
Mighty God," Isa. ix. 6 ; and « the Almighty," 
Rev. i. 8. He says, u All power is given unto me 
in heaven and in earth," and his omnipotence is 
seen in the works of creation and providence. " All 
things were made by him," and he " upholds all 
things by the word of his power." To suppose 
that there are two beings of infinite power, is ab- 
surd ; as they must necessarily limit each other, 
and one or the other must be finite. But the Scrip- 
tures represent the Son as omnipotent, as well as 
the Father ; hence it is clear that they are one 
Being ; and that God exists under the personal dis- 
tinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

In reply to this argument Arians assert that God 
delegated his power to Christ ; and it is only as a 
delegate, or agent, that he is omnipotent. In sup- 
port of this theory, they quote the passage — ■" All 
power is given unto me," laying great stress on the 
word "given" If this text proves that Christ's 
power was derived, a similar passage will prove the 
same thing of the Father. It is written, Acts L 7, 
*'It is not for you to know' the times or the seasons 
which the Father hath put in his own power" Now, 
instead of supposing that omnipotence was given 
to a creature, or that God literally put things in his 
own power, it is obvious that these passages mean 
nothing more than that Christ and the Father pos- 
sess unlimited power, both in heaven and in earth \ 
not by delegation, but inherently. Christ cannot 
be omnipotent by delegation, because, (1.) Omnip- 
otence is an incommunicable attribute of Deity. 
God cannot make a creature omnipotent, for to do 
so would be to create a God, and destroy his own 



56 DEITY Of CHRIST. 

existence. (2.) If God delegated infinite power tm 
a creature, he himself must have been destitute of 
that power ; and not the Almighty God. It is not 
possible, therefore, that Christ was omnipotent by 
delegation. Even some Arians have acknowledged 
this. Mr. Perry says, in his written discussion^ 
that - no power was delegated or given to Christ to 
create the world. 5 ' But how he can reconcile this 
with the idea, that Christ is a creature and an agent 7 
is more than we can tell. The concession shows,, 
however, the discord that prevails in the Arian 
ranks ; and also, that the notion of delegated om- 
nipotence is far from being satisfactory to some of 
the leaders of that sect. As Scripture and reason 
are against this theory, we reject it as an invention, 
of men ; and maintain that Christ is, of himself, a 
being of infinite power ; and consequently the self- 
existent and eternal God,. 

V. God, and God only,, is omniscient. — I. By 
this we mean that he has universal knowledge, or 
is infinitely knowing. " Known unto God are all 
his works from the beginning of the world. 7 ' " Q 
Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.. 
Thou knowest my dbwnsitting and mine up- 
rising ; thou understandest my thoughts afar off? 
Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and 
art acquainted with all my way. For there is not 
a word in my tongue but lo, O Lord, thou knowest 
it altogether.' 7 "-Hell is naked before him., and de- 
struction hath no covering." C1 Great is the Lord, 
his understanding is infinite." No created or finite 
being can possibly be infinite in any of his attri- 
butes i hence infinite knowledge must belong ex- 
clusively to the uncreated and infinite God. 

2. But Jesus Christ is omniscient. This is incon- 
sistently denied by Arians. They assert that God 



DEITY OF CHPtlST. 57 

delegated omnipotence to Christ, and yet that he 
was not omniscient. But how could this be? 
Could Christ have " all power in heaven and in 
earth," without having all knowledge? It has 
been said, with great justice, that " knowledge is 
power ;" because the power of all finite beings, to 
say the least, depends to a great extent upon their 
knowledge. This principle will hold good in refe- 
rence to Christ, on the supposition that he is a 
creature. If he was limited in knowledge, he 
must have been limited in power ; as no being can 
act beyond his knowledge. But Arians represent 
him as a being of very limited mental capacity — - 
increasing in wisdom by a residence on earth — in- 
finitely inferior to God in knowledge, and yet hav- 
ing infinite power ! 

It is alleged, from Matt. xxiv. 36, that Christ did 
not know when the day of judgment would be. 
If so, how can he adjust the affairs of his mediato- 
rial kingdom, and of the universe, preparatory to 
that day f Is He, who is to judge the world, igno- 
rant of the period when he is to do it? In respect 
to the above text, we remark, 

1 . That it has no reference whatever to the day 
of judgment. The topic, on which our Lord is 
discoursing, is the destruction of Jerusalem ; hence 
he refers to the prophecy of Daniel respecting that 
event, and says, " When ye shall see those things 
come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the door. 
Verily, I say unto you, that this generation shall not 
pass, till all these things be done." — -Mark xiii. 29. 

2. It is by no means certain that Christ intended 
to disavow his knowledge of the time when Jeru- 
salem should be destroyed. The phrase, " neither 
the Son," is found only in Mark ; and many emi- 
nent critics consider it spurious. 



58 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

3. But even if it be genuine, the term Son must 
here refer to the human nature only. Christ was 
the Son of God in both natures, considered as dis- 
tinct Hence, when referring to either of these 
natures, it was necessary to call it the Son. As to 
the term Father, it would be natural if Christ 
spoke of his human nature only, that he should 
designate the Divinity by the use of that term ; as 
his own Divine nature is called " the Everlasting 
Father,"— Isa. ix. 6, and the whole Godhead is 
called the " Father of all." Eph. iv. 6. As a hu- 
man being, then, Christ could say, " Of that day, 
and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels 
which are in heaven, neither the Son, [as a < manf\ 
but the Father ;" that is, the Divinity. As God, 
Christ certainly knew all about this event. He 
laid down all the particulars relative to it, declared 
that one stone should not be left upon another, and 
all his predictions were fulfilled to the very letter. 
How is it, then, that he, in whom dwelt all the full- 
ness of the Godhead, did not know this small mat- 
ter ? and yet Daniel had known and foretold the 
time, hundreds of years before % See Daniel ix a 
24, &c. 

It is evident, therefore, that if Christ disavows a 
knowledge of the time of this event, he does it only 
as man. In this sense the text might be true, but, 
of his Divinity, it could not. 

One of the distinguishing characteristics of 
Christ's nature as man, was a capability of pro- 
gressive advancement in knowledge. " Jesus in- 
creased in wisdom," Now, although we maintain 
the Supreme Divinity of Christ, we do not suppose 
that the incommunicable attributes of Deity, were 
imparted to his human nature. As a human beings 
Christ was neither omnipotent, omniscient, omni- 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 59 

present, or eternal. He had a human soul as well 
as body, and this soul " increased in wisdom" like 
other souls. Now, all that the human soul of 
Christ knew respecting future events, must have 
been communicated to it by the Divinity. As man, 
then, he might have known all that was to take 
place relative to Jerusalem, excepting the time, a 
knowledge of which was not communicated. 

That Christ often spoke in reference to his hu- 
manity and Divinity, as distinct from each other, is 
certain. As man he could say, " I am no more in 
the world — me ye have not always ;" but, as God, 
he says, he will " make his abode with us" — meet 
K where two or three are gathered together in his 
name," and be with his disciples " alway, even unto 
the end of the world." So also, as man, he could 
say he knew not the day nor the hour when Jeru- 
salem should be destroyed ; while, as God, he knew 
all things. 

Both Kinkade and Millard object to this view of 
the subject, as implicating Christ in the charge of 
prevarication and falsehood. Their position is, that 
if Christ knew a thing in any sense, he could not 
in truth say he did not know it. But suppose we 
apply this rule to some other sayings of his, and 
say, if Christ is with us alway in any sense, he 
could not say, K me ye have not alway." Would 
not the objection be equally reasonable? Christ 
says he is, and is not, with us alway, because as 
God he is with us, while, as man, he has gone into 
heaven. So, as man, he was finite in knowledge, 
while, as God, his understanding was infinite. To 
illustrate their position, both the above writers com- 
pare Christ to a man, one of whose eyes is defec- 
tive ; and allege, that if he sees a thing with one 
eye, he cannot say he does not see it ; therefore, if 



60 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

Christ knew a thing in one nature, he could not 
say he did not know it. In the case of the man 
with one eye, there would be falsehood ; but the 
case of Christ is widely different. The man has 
but one intellect that could possibly know a thing ; 
hence, if he denied seeing a thing, the same intel- 
lect that saw must deny that it saw, simply because 
it had but one eye to see with. But in the case of 
Cfirist there were two intellects, the Divine and in- 
finite Spirit, and the human soul ; hence, if the Di- 
vinity only saw a future event, it would not be false- 
hood for the humanity to say it did not know it. If 
the man in the Arian illustration had two distinct 
souls, one of which saw with the right eye, and the 
other with the left, the soul that had the blind eye 
could say, " I cannot see," though the other soul 
had the most extended and perfect vision. 

4. To say that the Divine nature of Christ did not 
know this matter, is to contradict numerous Scrip- 
tures that represent him as omniscient. " Jesus did 
not commit himself unto them because he knew all 
men, and needed not that any should testify of man, 
for he knew what was in man.'''' " Jesus knew from 
the beginning who they were who believed not." 
" The word of God is quick and powerful, and 
is a discern er of the thoughts and intents of the 
heart. Neither is there any creature that is not 
manifest in his sight ; but all things are naked and 
open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to 
do." Without infinite knowledge, Christ could 
never have created the universe, neither could he 
now "uphold all things by the word of his power," 
Much less would he be qualified " to be the Judge 
of quick and dead." But he is to judge the secrets 
of men 7 s hearts — to bring every work into judgment, 
with every secret thing — to bring to light the hidden 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 61 

things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels 
of the heart. Can he do these things without in- 
finite knowledge ? Most certainly not. 

In the 2d of Colossians, we read of u the mystery 
of God, and of the Father, and of Christ ; in whom 
are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' 1 
Here the Apostle speaks first of God, by which he 
means the whole Godhead, and afterwards mentions 
the Father and Christ as distinct persons in the 
Trinity. He affirms that in Christ all the trea- 
sures of wisdom and knowledge are hid. Now 
could this be true, if there were some things that 
Christ did not know 1 Do u all the treasures of 
wisdom and knowledge" mean a part of them ? 
Again — It is written, " I the Lord search the heart, 
I try the reins, even to give every man according to 
his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." 
Solomon says, " Thou, even thou only, knowest the 
hearts of all the children of men." But Christ 
says, in the 2d chapter of Revelation, " I am he 
which searcheth the reins and hearts ; and I will 
give unto every one of you according to your 
works," using the same language to assert his Dei- 
ty and omniscience, that he had used by Jeremiah 
hundreds of years before. He thus identifies him- 
self as the heart-searching and rein-trying God ; and 
clearly asserts his own omniscience. 

Peter, in addressing himself to Christ says, a Thou 
knowest all things," and yet Christ did not rebuke 
him as a heretic, or even intimate that the sentiment 
was erroneous. Now, if Christ knew all things, of 
course he knew when Jerusalem would be destroyed, 
nor can any other being know more than he does. 
If he knows all men, knows what is in man, and 
knew who would believe ; if all things are open 
before him ; if he has all the treasures of wisdom 
6 



62 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

and knowledge, is to judge the world, and i? that 
Being who alone can search the hearts of men ; he 
must be infinite in knowledge, the Arian hypothe- 
sis to the contrary notwithstanding. From these 
premises then, as thus supported, the Deity of 
Christ necessarily follows. God, and God only, is 
omniscient. Jesus Christ is omniscient, therefore 
Jesus Christ is God. 

VI. The Deity of Christ follows from his 
Omnipresence. Omnipresence, says Webster, is 
'"presence in all places at the same time — un- 
bounded or universal presence." 

1. God , and God only r , is omnipresent. i: Whith- 
er shall I go from thy spirit, or whither shall I flee 
from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven 
thou art there : if I make my bed in hell, behold 
thou art 'here. If I take the wings of the morning, 
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ; even 
there shall thy hand lead me and thy right hand 
shall hold me." " Can any hide himself in the se- 
cret place that I shall not see him, saith the Lord ? 
Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord V 
Plain and explicit as are the Scriptures on this 
point, Arians virtually deny the omnipresence of 
Deity. They first assume that God has a body 
like a man, and then, to be consistent with them- 
selves, deny that he is every where present. So 
Mr. Kinkade, in his chapter on a material Deity. 
We will give a specimen of his reasoning. " This 
doctrine," says he, " deprives God of his agency, for 
if his essence fills immensity, he cannot be an active 
Being, because there could be no room for him to 
act in, unless he could act beyond immensity, which 
is impossible. He cannot even turn round unless 
there is some space outside of him, and if there is, 
he does not fill all immensity." « If he fills all im- 



DEITi r OF CHRIST. 63 

mensity, he cannot have the power of locomotion, 
unless he contracts and dilates his person," &c. 
"If his person fills immensity, his sight does not 
extend one inch from him. The sight of an ant 
extends but a few inches around it, while that of a 
man extends as many miles. As God surpasses us 
infinitely more than we do the smallest insect ; we 
must suppose he can sit on his throne in heaven, 
and see and control every being in the universe 
without being with them in person." — " Bible Doc- 
trine," pp. 156-7-67. In disposing of those Scrip- 
tures that teach that God is every where, Mr. K. 
says, •• God can fill heaven and earth with his ar- 
mies, his power, his infinite riches and perfection," 
and quotes passages to show that he is omnipresent 
by his glory, his knowledge, &c. 

Notwithstanding the Psalmist says, " If I make 
my bed in hell, behold thou art there," Mr. K. 
says, (p. 70,) " If God is as much in hell as he is 
any where else, the wicked shall not depart from 
him to go there. The phrase i depart from me in- 
to everlasting fire,' proves that God and hell-fire 
are not in the same place." We shall leave the 
reader to decide which is most consistent, the Arian 
notion of a corporeal and local Divinity, or the Scrip- 
tural doctrine of a spiritual and omnipresent God. 

2. But Jesus Christ is omnipresent. This is im- 
plied where it is said he " upholdeth all things," 
and " by him all things consist f as no being can act 
where he is not. Paul says he " filleth all in all," 
and Christ says, " Where two or three are gathered 
together, there am I in the midst." " Lo, I am with 
you alway, even unto the end of the word." But 
Arians say, Christ is not absolutely omnipresent 5 
and that the omnipresence he possesses is no proof 
of his Divinity. As an illustration, Mr. Millard 



64 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

says, Satan is in very many places at the same time, 
and yet is not omnipresent. This we deny. We 
have no proof that a good angel even, can be in 
two places at once ; and as to Satan, he must "go 
about like a roaring lion" to seek his prey. The 
amount of temptation and sin in all parts of the 
world, is no proof that the Devil is omnipresent, as 
all this is not to he charged to one evil spirit, hut to 
" the Devil and his angels." Instead of one omni- 
present Devil, as Arians suppose, it is probable that 
there are more fallen spirits that have access to our 
world, and are striving against truth and holiness, 
than there are human beings on the face of the globe. 
Mr. M.'s theory is, therefore, a mere hypothesis ; and 
the omnipresence of Christ cannot be disproved by 
putting him on a level with Satan. 

The sum of our argument upon this point is, that 
God and God only is omnipresent ; but as Christ 
is omnipresent, Jesus Christ is God. 

VII. The Divinity of Christ follows, from 

THE FACT THAT HE IS THE PROPER OBJECT OF RE- 
LIGIOUS WORSHIP. 

By religious worship we do not mean mere re- 
spectj honor, or veneration, such as is due from man 
to man ; but divine honors, supreme respect and 
adoration, such as is due to God only. In no other 
sense do the Scriptures speak of worship as a re- 
ligious act ; and in this sense has the term always 
been used by the Church of Christ. Now we learn 
from the Scriptures, 

1 . Thai no being is entitled io religions worship but 
God, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
him only shalt thou serve." " Hear, O Israel : The 
Lord our God is one Lord : And thou shalt love 
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
thy soul, and with all thy mi^ht/ But while it is 



DEITY 01 CHRIST. 65 

thus clear that no being but God is entitled to re- 
ligious worship, it is equally clear, 

2. That Jesus Christ is entitled to this worship. 
"Let all the angels of God worship him" — "At 
the name of Jesus every knee shall bow" — u All men 
should honor the Son, even as they honor the Fa- 
ther" — " And they stoned Stephen calling upon God, 
and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" — " And 
they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem 
with great joy" — "And they came and held him 
by the feet and worshipped him" — " And when they 
saw him they worshipped him" &c In the first 
chapter of 1st Corinthians, the Apostle directs his epis- 
tle to " the Church of God which is at Corinth — 
with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus 
Christ our Lord." From this we learn that a dis- 
tinguishing characteristic of the " saints" of the 
apostolic age, w r as that they prayed to Christ ; and 
consequently Christ received the worship of the 
apostles and the primitive Church. Of course, then, 
he is the proper object of religious worship. 

But here again we are met by our opponents. 
While they admit that God is the only being that 
may receive religious worship in its proper sense, 
they deny that Christ ever received such worship ; 
or is in any respect entitled to it They consider 
the worship due to Christ as mere " adoration, re- 
spect, or honor," such as may be paid to parents, 
magistrates, and rulers. Hence Kinkade says, " It 
is perfectly right to worship earthly rulers, and 
when the Lord says, l Thou shalt worship the Lord 
thy God and him only shalt thou serve.' the mean- 
ing is that we must worship and serve, that is, hon- 
or and obey him, and him alone as the Supreme 
God. He does not mean that we should not wor- 
ship and serve our magistrates and families in their 

a* 



66 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

proper places. If it is wrong to worship creatures, 
Christ would not have directed us to use means to 
get our neighbors to worship us. I worship the Fa- 
ther as the Supreme Being, and I worship Jesus 
Christ as the Son of God — the next greatest being 
to God in the universe/' &c. — pp. 123, 4. 

That the term worship is sometimes used in 
Scriptures to represent respect to parents or magis- 
trates, no one denies ; but, when thus employed, it is 
used in an accommodated sense, to denote filial or 
civil respect, and not to signify religious worship. 
But in this secondary sense, Arians worship Christ 
They pay him a sort of deference, which falls as far 
short of religious worship, as honoring a creature 
falls below the worship of God. We are, therefore, 
borne out in the assertion, that Arians pay no reli- 
gious worship to Christ whatever ; as filial or civil 
reverence is not religious worship. If the proper 
distinction between religious worship and mere re- 
spect to creatures be kept in view, it will be clear 
that Arians do not worship Christ, any more than 
they worship their parents, or the President of the 
United States. 

But it is contended, that there are various kinds 
of religious worship ; and that, while we are for- 
bidden to worship any being but God,, as God ; 
it is right to pay a subordinate religious worship to 
a creature ; and that we may worship Christ re- 
ligiously as a creature, while at the same time we 
worship God only as the Supreme Being. This is 
the true doctrine of modern Arians ; and against it 
we urge the following objections : — 

1. There is no such distinction in religious wor- 
ship as this theory supposes. Reverence to parents 
and rulers is entirely different and distinct from 
religious worship. The object to whom worship is 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 67 

paid, affects its quality ; and no worship is truly re- 
ligious, but that which is paid to the Deity himself. 
Neither the worship of idols, or of any other 
creature, can be called religious worship in the 
Christian sense. The above hypothesis, therefore, 
being built upon a distinction that does not exist, 
must fall to the ground. 

2. The Scriptures no where claim a subordinate 
or creature worship for Christ. If the reader will 
turn back, and read over the passages already ad- 
duced that speak of Christ's worship, he will find 
that they not only contain no hint that his worship 
should be of a secondary quality, but on the con- 
trary they claim for him supreme love and adora- 
tion. " All men should honor the Son, even as 
they honor the Father" Now, whether the term 
tt honor" means worship, as Arians teach, or not, 
the case is the same. The text claims for Christ 
the same worship or honor that is paid to the Fa- 
ther. But do we worship the Father as a creature 1 
Do we " honor the Father" by offering him a spu- 
rious worship ? We are to worship him as the Su- 
preme Object of all religious worship, and love him 
with all our hearts ; and " all men should honor 
the Son even as they honor the Father." 

The worship of primitive Christians was con- 
ducted in obedience to these instructions. Even 
angels, who worship the Father, worship Christ. 
All should bow to the Father, and also to the Son. 
The early saints called upon the name of the Fa- 
ther, and Paul says, they " called upon the name 
of Jesus." Dying Stephen called upon the name 
of God, when he said, " Lord Jesus, receive my 
spirit," as soul and body were parting. There is 
not an instance on record in which the worship paid 
to Christ seems to have been any thing less than 



68 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

that which was usually paid to the Supreme Be- 
ing. 

3. The distinction of worship on which the 
Arian theory depends for its support, is the ground- 
work of one of the most pernicious practices of the 
Church of Rome. When a Papist is accused of 
idolatry, in worshipping relics and saints, his an- 
swer is, " We do not worship them as God, but 
merely as creatures" Let us hear one of their 
priests on this point We quote from " Lectures on 
the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Ca- 
tholic Church," by Nicholas Wiseman, D. D.. vol. 
ii. p. 77. 

" For, my brethren, what is idolatry ? It is the 
giving to man, or to any thing created, that hom- 
age, that adoration, and that worship, which God 
hath reserved unto himself; and, to substantiate 
such a charge [that of idolatry] against us, it must 
be proved that such honor and worship is alien- 
ated by us from God, and given to a creature. Now, 
what is the Catholic belief on the subject of giving 
worship or veneration to the saints or their em- 
blems ? You will not open a single Catholic work, 
from the folio decrees of Councils, down to the 
smallest catechisms, in which you will not find it 
expressly taught, that it is sinful to pay the same 
homage or worship to the saints which we pay to 
God : that supreme honor and worship are re- 
served exclusively to him, &c. No one surely 
will say, that there is no distinction between one 
species of homage and reverence and another ; no 
one will assert, that when we honor the king, or 
his representatives, or our parents, or others in law- 
ful authority over us, we are thereby derogating 
from the supreme honor due to God." Again, p. 
78 — " It is wasting time to prove that there may 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 69 

be honor and worship, so subservient to God, as 
in no way to interfere with what is due to him. 
What I have cursorily stated, is precisely the Ca- 
tholic belief regarding the saints." 

From this quotation, every one can see that the 
theory of Kinkade and the Arians, and that of Dr. 
Wiseman and the Catholics, is precisely the same. 
It is used for the same purpose in both cases, name- 
ly, to repel the charge of idolatry, and justify sub- 
ordinate religious worship. The only difference 
is that the Catholics worship a number of creatures, 
while the Arians worship but one. If the distinc- 
tion contended for by the latter is correct, the former 
are certainly right in worshipping relics, images, 
and saints ; so that we must either reject the Arian 
notion of supreme and subordinate worship, or sanc- 
tion all the idolatry of the Church of Eome. 

4. This theory must create great confusion and 
great danger in religious worship. In the first 
place, it acknowledges two Gods, both of whom are 
objects of religious adoration. But while Christ is 
worshipped as well as the Father, it is admitted, 
that to pay him the highest order of worship, would 
be downright idolatry. This being the case, we 
might expect that the worship of Christ and the 
worship of God would be kept distinct by Arians ; 
and that they would not only have a set day for the 
public worship of each, but also give notice, that 
on such a day they would meet to worship the 
creature, (Christ,) and on such a day to worship 
God; that is, one day for their supreme and another 
for their subordinate Divinities. This would be 
nothing more than is imperatively demanded, if the 
Ariaa notion be correct, in order to the safety of 
the souls of the worshippers. Hence the Catholics, 
who worship images, &c, on the same principle 



70 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

that Arians worship Christ, allow each saint his 
day ; and keep the worship of their respective gods 
in a great measure distinct. But instead of this 
necessary precaution on the part of the Arians, 
they worship both their Gods on the same day, in 
the same place, and in the same hour ; and adopt 
no measures whatever to guard themselves or others 
against the horrible sin of idolatry. They use the 
same day, and notify their worship in the same 
manner, that Trinitarians do ; and make no distinc- 
tion whatever between the worship of Christ and 
of God in any part of their services. 

Again : Both Arians and Catholics admit, that 
to render supreme worship to a creature would be 
idolatry ; and yet if Arians worship Christ at all, 
they take the very means to secure him supreme 
homage. They worship him publicly on the same 
day that those worship who worship God only — 
make great efforts in the pulpit professedly to exalt 
Christ — often pray to him and claim to love him 
better than others ; and even arrogate to themselves 
exclusively the name of Christian. With all these 
helps to the supreme worship of Christ, they have 
no guards to prevent so ruinous a calamity. In- 
stead of erecting light-houses on the coast of de- 
struction, they kindle bonfires to lure souls to the 
dark rocks of idolatry and eternal ruin. Their 
leaders never say, " Now let us worship Christ — 
be careful and worship him as a creature — restrain 
your love and reverence, and give him only a par- 
tial homage" — no ; all is mingled together in indis- 
criminate confusion. Some are worshipping one 
of their Gods, and some another — one moment they 
worship Jehovah, and the next a creature, and all 
are constantly liable to go so far in the worship of 
Christ as to ruin their souls forever. 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 71 

This danger has been seen, even by Arians them- 
selves. A minister, who denied the Deity of Christ, 
says, in writing to another, " I know not what to 
do. My people will not worship Christ. When I 
urge them to this duty, they reply, i Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
serve.' Others, to be on the safe side, have given 
up the worship of Christ altogether, and denounced 
it as l idolatrous worship ;' " and, if Arianism be 
true, this is far more consistent and safe than to 
persist in the worship of our Lord and Saviour. 

5. The Arian theory of worship not only coun- 
tenances the idolatry of the Romish Church, but 
likewise that of all Pagan lands. It is assumed, 
both by Arians and Catholics, that it is not idolatry 
to worship a creature, unless we worship it " as the 
Supreme God." Now let us apply this rule to Pa- 
gan idolatry. Does the African worship his gree, 
gree, as the Supreme God? Did the Ephesians 
worship Diana as the first and highest of all Di- 
vinities ? Were not all the gods of the Greeks and 
Romans subordinate Divinities, one excepted? The 
truth is, few, if any, of the gods of Pagan lands are 
worshipped as supreme ; hence, according to the 
Arian doctrine, there is little or no idolatry in the 
world 

6. Finally : We deny that the Scriptures justify 
us in paying religious worship to a creature in any 
degree whatever. It is admitted, on all hands, that 
the text — " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God," 
&c. — refers to religious worship only. Now the 
same text that commands us to pay religious wor- 
ship to God, is equally clear and authoritative in 
the prohibition, "Him only shalt thou serve." 
We are thereby solemnly inhibited from paying 
any kind of religious worship to any being but 



72 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

God : nor is there a single instance on record where 
a creature was worshipped with the Divine approval. 

If, as Arians tell us, the above text does not for- 
bid the worship of creatures, but merely cautions 
us against regarding them as supreme, why did 
Christ employ it in his conflict with Satan ? The 
enemy did not ask to be worshipped as God, but in 
his proper character as a Devil, tempted Christ to wor- 
ship him. He asked merely for worship, without 
specifying any particular kind or degree, and Christ 
quotes the law as forbidding it. Now, if the law 
did not forbid the worship of all creatures, of course 
it did not forbid the worship of Satan, provided it 
was not supreme ; and as Satan asked only to be 
worshipped as a creature, the text was wrongly ap- 
plied. But the use made of this text by our Lord 
shows conclusively, that Christ understood it as for- 
bidding the worship of all creatures. 

When John was about to worship the angel, Rev. 
xxii. 8, the angel said to him, u See thou do it not ;' ? 
and immediately assigns the reason, namely, that 
he also was a creature. Kinkade's exposition of 
the text goes to show that the angel was willing to 
be worshipped, but objected only to supreme wor- 
ship. He says, " The reason why the angel talked 
so to John, was, that he saw John was about to 
offer him undue worship, that is, John was going to 
worship him too as the Supreme God." He then 
attempts to show that the angel was Christ. To 
this interpretation we object. (1.) The angel said, 
" I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the 
prophets" If he was one of the old prophets, he 
could not have been Jesus Christ. (2.) Jesus 
Christ never said to any of his worshippers, " See 
thou do it not." (3.) The angel did not say, "Do 
not worship me as God, or as an angel " but for- 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 73 

bade John to worship him at all ; and then directed 
him to the only proper object of religious worship. 
John mistook the angel for Christ, and therefore 
fell down to worship him. The angel seeing this, 
corrects the mistake by telling who he was, and 
says, u ivorship God ;" as if God only might be 
worshipped. It is clear, therefore, that it is wrong 
to pay any degree of religious worship to any crea- 
ture whatever. 

From all these considerations, we are compelled 
to reject the Arian theory of worship, as an un- 
scriptural, unreasonable, and dangerous invention ; 
and to consider the worship paid to Christ as un- 
restricted and supreme. Now, as no being but 
God may receive religious worship, and yet all the 
angels of God, and the whole human family, are 
required to worship Christ, it follows that Jesus 
Christ is God ; and in worshipping him supremely, 
we are obeying the commandment, " Thou shall 
ivorship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
serve." 

VIII. The Deity of Christ ts necessarily im- 
plied IN NUMEROUS PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. " Be- 
ing in the form of God, he thought it not robbery 
to be equal with God." — Philip, ii. 6. " In him 
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." — 
Col. ii. 9. The Father is in me, and I in him." — 
John x. 38. " I and my Father are one." — John 
x. 30. " He that hath seen me, hath seen the Fa- 
ther." — John xiv. 9. a All men should honor the. 
Son, even as they honor the Father." — John v. 23/ 
None of these passages can be reconciled with the 
idea that Christ was a creature. For a creature to 
be equal with God would certainly be robbery ; 
and even Arians admit that to honor a creature, as 
We honor the Father, is idolatry. We must there- 

7 



74 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

fore believe that he who spake, or was spoken of, 
in these passages, was the uncreated Word ; a God 
manifest in the flesh." 

IX. The titles of Christ are proofs of his 
proper Divinity.— 1. The title of " Lord" is a 
common name for Jehovah throughout the Old 
Testament. It is said u the Lord our God is one 
Lord," and the New Testament teaches " one Lord, 
one faith, one baptism ;" and yet this same book, 
that reveals God to man under the name of " Lord," 
reveals Christ to us as " King of kings, and Lord 
of lords." Indeed, " Lord" is a common title of 
Christ throughout the New Testament. Now, on 
the supposition that he is a mere creature, why has 
the Holy Ghost revealed this creature to man, under 
the same title that reveals Jehovah in the Old Tes- 
tament ? But more on this point hereafter. 

2. The name, " Son of God," implies absolute 
Divinity, and was so understood by the Jews of our 
Lord's time, and by Christ himself. We have de- 
fined the term son as applied to Christ in Chapter 
II., and need only add here, that it was never ap- 
plied to his pre-existent nature to signify that it was 
begotten, or born ; or that he had a natural father 
or mother. Of course, then, the fact that Christ is 
called " the Son of God," is no evidence of his in- 
feriority, any more than the use of the term Father 
is proof of family relations in the Godhead. Christ 
is called " the Everlasting Father," as well as 
" the Son of God." When he said, " God was his 
Father," John v. 18, the Jews sought to kill him, 
not because, as they understood him, he had de- 
clared himself a creature, but because he had made 
himself equal with God. Again — Because he said, 
" I am the Son of God," John x. 36, " the Jews 
took up stones again to stone him ; and, when 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 75 

asked why they did it, they answer, u for blas- 
phemy : and because that thou being a man 
makest thyself God." In both these cases, the 
Jews understood him to assert his absolute Divin- 
ity ; for, when he said he was the Son of God, 
they said he made himself God. It is certain, 
therefore, that the Jews understood the title, " Son 
of God," as a title of Divinity ; and it is no small 
confirmation of this idea that Josephus, a learned 
Jew of that age, calls Christ " God the Word," p. 
609. If, then, this title is a title of supreme Divin- 
ity, and was so used by Christ, knowing how he 
would be understood, it follows that Christ claimed 
Divinity when he said he was the Son of God ; 
and the application of this title to Christ in the 
Scripture, is proof of his Deity. 

3. Jesus Christ is the God of the Old and New 
Testaments. John crying in the wilderness before 
Christ, was to say, " Make straight in the desert a 
highway for our God." " Behold your God," Isa. 
iv. 3, 9. Christ is called " The Mighty God," Isa. 
ix. 6 ; " God with us," Matt. i. 23 ; " the Lord our 
God," Luke i. 16; " God manifest in the flesh," 
1 Tim. iii. 16 ; « God our Saviour," Tit. ii. 10 ; the 
God whose throne " is forever and ever," Heb. i. 
8 : « the true God," 1 John v. 20 ; " the God who 
purchased the Church with his own blood," Acts 
xx. 28 ; " and the God who laid down his life for 
us," 1 John iii. 16. Thomas calls him " his Lord 
and his Gocl," John xx. 28, and it is said, " the Word 
was God," John i. 1. In view of these passages, 
Arians admit that " Christ is called God," and that 
he is God in a subordinate sense. Kinkade says, 
" I conscientiously call him my Lord and my God, 
and yet I firmly believe he is a created being." 
Mr. Perry says, " he is God, though not the only 



76 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

true God." It is thus assumed that there are two 
Gods, one created, and the other eternal ; and to 
keep this theory in countenance, it is alleged that 
Moses was God, and that there are many gods be- 
sides Jehovah. But we are not contending that 
there are no false gods, or that Moses was not " a 
god to Pharaoh." This we admit, but it has no- 
thing to do with the question Moses was " a god 
to Pharaoh," that is, " instead of God," Exod. iv. 
16 ; as Moses sustained the same relation to Aaron 
as his teacher, that God sustained to Moses; but 
the Scriptures nowhere represent Christ as " a god," 
or " instead of God." It is a mere evasion of the 
question, therefore, to introduce Moses and others 
as Gods, even though the capital G be added in all 
cases, as is done by Kinkade. 

On the supposition that the title God in the above 
texts is applied to a creature, it ought certainly to 
have been qualified by the introduction of an ad- 
jective ; especially as the Bible reveals but one God. 
John should have said, " Behold your created God," 
and we should read, " The Mighty created God — 
our created God — the true created God — my Lord 
and my created God — the Word was the created and 
subordinate God." This would not only have 
guarded us against the notion of only one God, and 
of the proper Divinity of Christ, but also have- 
given some countenance to the Arian notion of a plu- 
rality of Gods, one supreme and one subordinate. 

But both reason and religion forbid such an un- 
derstanding of the Sacred Oracles. It is written, 
" Before me there was no God formed, neither 
shall there be after me — besides me there is no 
God — there is no God beside me — there is none 
other God but one ;" and yet in this same book the 
" Word" is revealed to us as the u true" and 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 77 

"mighty God." We must therefore either adopt 
the ridiculous notion, that there are two Gods, in 
direct opposition to the Scriptures, or admit that 
Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the second person in the 
holy Trinity. 

4. Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the Jewish 
Scriptures. " This name," says Cruden, " signifies 
he who exists of himself;" and it is generally ad- 
mitted that it belongs exclusively to the Supreme 
Being. The Scriptures fully settle this point. 
i; And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and 
unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by 
my name Jehovah was I not known to them." 
" Thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most 
High over all the earth." " I am the Lord : (Je- 
hovah,) that is my name : and my glory will I not 
give to another." " I am Jehovah, and there is 
none else ; there is no God besides me." 

But, while the Scriptures restrict this august title 
to God alone, they more than once apply it to Jesus 
Christ. The original word translated " Lord" 
in the New Testament, is the same used in the 
Greek version of the Old Testament, to signify 
Jehovah. Jehovah, in Hebrew, is rendered 
Kyrios in Greek ; and Kyrios in Greek is rendered 
Lord in English ; so that Lord in the New Testa- 
ment is the same as Jehovah in the Old. We may 
therefore substitute the word Jehovah where the 
title " Lord" is applied to Christ in the New Tes- 
tament, without altering the sense of those passages. 
That the New Testament writers used the term 
Kyrios^ or Lord, in this sense, is certain. Hence. 
" Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord 
shall be saved," is a correct quotation from Joel ii. 
32. u Whosoever shall call on the name of Je- 
hovah shall be delivered." " Thou, Lord. (Jeho- 

7* 



78 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

vaHj) hast laid the foundations of the earth" — " pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord," (Jehovah,) — " say 
unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God," (Jeho- 
vah) — " and this is the name whereby he shall be 
called, the Lord (Jehovah) our righteousness." 

Now, as Jehovah is God's name, and he alone is 
Jehovah ; and as Jesus Christ is Jehovah, it follows 
that Christ is the Supreme Being, the God of the 
spirits of all flesh. 

Dr. Waterland says, " if Jehovah signify the 
eternal, immutable God, it is manifest that the name 
is incommunicable, since there is but one God ; and 
if the name be incommunicable, then Jehovah can 
signify nothing but that one God, to whom, and to 
whom only, it is applied." Mr. Watson says of 
Christ, " he is called Jehovah himself, a name which 
the Scriptures give to no person whatever, except 
to each of the sacred Three, who stand forth, in 
the pages of the Old and New Testaments, 
crowned with this supreme and exclusive honor and 
eminence." 

It is unnecessary to spend time in noticing Arian 
arguments on this point, as they carry their own re- 
futation with them. All Kinkade says, to prove 
that Christ is an Archangel, is only so much testi- 
mony that Christ is God ; as he admits that Christ 
was "the Angel of the Lord" that appeared to Mo- 
ses in the burning bush, and we all know that this 
Angel was the " Angel Jehovah," the God of the 
Old Testament. This is the opinion of all the 
Trinitarian writers that he has professed to quote, 
in order to support his cause. 

Whether, then, we consider Christ as the " Son 
of God," as " Lord," as " God," or as " Jehovah," 
we have abundant evidence in the necessary and 
exclusive import of these terms, that he is the se- 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 79 

cond person of the adorable Trinity, the eternal, in- 
finite JEHOVAH. One more argument, in favor of 
the Deity of Christ, and we shall dismiss the subject. 
X. The Divinity of Christ follows from the 

FACT THAT HE FORGIVES SINS. 

1. No being but God can forgive sins. When 
Christ said to the sick of the palsy, " Thy sins be 
forgiven thee," the Scribes said, " Who can forgive 
sins but God only?" Christ does not deny the cor- 
rectness of their position ; but proceeds to convince 
them, that " the Son of man had power on earth to 
forgive sins," as if desirous from their own premises 
to lead them to the acknowledgment of his proper 
Divinity. To escape this conclusion is impossible. 
No being but God can forgive sins ; but Jesus 
Christ forgave sins ; therefore, Jesus Christ is God. 

That Christ forgave sins, is too plain to be de- 
nied, even by Arians themselves. The only al- 
ternative left them, is, to deny that God only can 
pardon the sinner ; and resort to the modern inven- 
tion of agency and delegation. It is therefore as- 
serted that Christ forgave sins merely as the agent 
or representative of the Almighty. The falsity and 
absurdity of this doctrine have already been shown ; 
but in respect to the point in hand, we further re- 
mark, 

(1.) That such is the nature of pardon, that no 
being can forgive offences for another. If a man 
injure us, we can forgive him, it is true ; but no 
man can forgive him in our stead ; neither can we 
forgive him so as to prevent the adjudication of the 
case by the Judge of all. So in respect to God. 
It is not possible, in the nature of things, that a 
creature should be authorized to forgive sins. 

(2.) This notion of pardon by proxy, is another 
" mark of the Beast" — a favorite dogma of " Baby- 



80 DEITY OF CHRIST. 

Ion." Papists tell us, that God can appoint a vice- 
gerent, or representative, to forgive sins, and that the 
world has such a delegate in the person of the 
Pope. They also allow this power to the priest- 
hood generally. Arianism responds to the first of 
these sentiments, but tells us that this agent is Jesus 
Christ instead of the Pope, a creature, in their opin- 
ion, a little above his Holiness in some respects. 
Now. if the Arian position be correct, we see no 
reason why the Catholics should not be correct 
also. If God could delegate the right to forgive 
sins to an exalted creature, that creature could ap- 
point Peter as his agent, and Peter could appoint 
his successor ; and it may be true, after all, that the 
Pope, and all his Cardinals and Priests, even to 
Bishop Hughes, have power on earth to forgive 
sins. 

We must then either abandon the notion of for- 
giveness by proxy altogether, or all turn Papists at 
once, and go over to the church of Rome. We 
therefore reject the Arian hypothesis of pardon by 
proxy as an unscriptural and blasphemous assump- 
tion — the very quintessence of Popery. 

We will now dismiss this important point in the 
doctrine of the Trinity, and bring this Chapter to a 
close. Though we have extended these remarks 
beyond the limits proposed, we have adduced but 
a few of the arguments that might be urged in sup- 
port of our position. Neither do we pretend that 
those selected are better than those that are omitted. 
Having determined not to swell this volume to an 
immoderate size ; and, knowing that many unan- 
swerable sermons on the Divinity of Christ were 
already before the public, we shall rest satisfied 
with the specimen of Scripture and argument al- 
ready adduced upon this point. We have shown 



DEITY OF CHRIST. 81 

that Christ is the omnipotent, omniscient, omni- 
present, and eternal Being, the Creator of all things 
seen and unseen. We have proved his Divinity 
from the fact, that he is the only proper object of 
religious worship, and from Scriptures that neces- 
sarily imply his Godhead. We have also identi- 
fied him as " God over all," from his titles of " Son 
of God ;" " Lord ;" " God ;" and " Jehovah ;" and 
have proved him to be the sin-pardoning God, the 
only God revealed in the Bible. On these argu- 
ments we are willing to rest our cause, with all 
who believe the Scriptures, and are willing to know 
the truth. We see no rational middle-ground be- 
tween rejecting the Divinity of Christ and denying 
the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. If he, whom 
the Scriptures reveal to us as the omnipotent, om- 
niscient, omnipresent, and eternal Being — the Je- 
hovah worshipped by men and angels — the God 
who upholds all things, forgives sins, and is to 
judge the world in the last day, is nothing but a 
mere finite creature of yesterday, a being infinitely 
below the Deity ; who can have any confidence in 
the Bible, or receive it for a moment as an infalli- 
ble revelation of God's will to man ? No wonder 
therefore, that Arianism is the highway to Deism ; 
for we must impeach the Bible to be an Arian. But, 
when we fall in with its plain and obvious mean- 
ing, all is clear. The Old and New Testaments 
agree with each other ; a key is furnished to un- 
lock the Book of Life ; a thousand ridiculous no- 
tions and absurdities are avoided ; the credit of the 
Holy Scriptures is preserved ; and angels and men 
are justified in honoring the Son, even as they hon- 
or the Father. May that Eternal H Word," who 
became incarnate to redeem us, shine on our hearts. 



82 DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 

and open our eyes ; that we may behold " the light 
of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face 
of Jesus Christ." 






CHAPTER VII. 

DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

In the preceding chapters we have shown that 
there is but one living and true God ; and that 
Jesus Christ has two natures, being in one nature 
verily and really man ; and in the other truly and 
properly God. That the " Word" or Son of God 
is a distinct person from the Father, is not denied by 
Arians. They not only admit his personality, but 
push the distinction so far as to make him a distinct 
being from God ; whereas we maintain that he is 
distinct only as a person in the Godhead, and is con- 
sequently possessed of absolute Divinity. This we 
think we have already proved to the satisfaction of 
every candid reader. We shall now proceed to 
establish the third leading point in the doctrine of 
the Trinity, namely, that the Holy Ghost also is 
really Divine ; and that he is a distinct person from 
the Father and the Son. On this point there is 
great confusion among Arian teachers and writers. 
Some say the Holy Ghost is one thing and some 
another. One says " he is a power, attribute, or 
emanation from God." Another says he is literally 
the breath of God, while a third informs us that he 
is God's soul that occupies his body as human souls 
occupy their bodies. Kinkade says, " God's Spirit, 
bears the same relation to God, that the spirit of 
man does to man." This is the prevailing doctrine 



DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 83 

on this point, among Arians. They hold that God 
has a body like a man, and that the Holy Spirit is 
the soul of that body ; so that God is not a pure 
spirit without body or parts, but a material being 
like man, having both soul and body. In this they 
have departed a little from the footsteps of their 
father Arius, and on this account they deny that 
they are Arians. But they have only exchanged 
one particular error for another, having, as it re- 
spects the Spirit, abandoned Arianism for Sabel- 
lianism. Both Arians and Sabellians deny the 
doctrine of the Trinity ; the former by making the 
Son a distinct being from God, and a creature, and 
the Spirit the soul of God ; the latter by making 
the Father, Son, and Spirit one person, with differ- 
ent titles under different dispensations. " Sabellians 
taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are 
only denominations [or names] of one hypostasis ; 
[or person ;] in other words, that there is but one 
person in the Godhead : — that under the Old Testa- 
ment, God delivered the law as Father; under 
the New, dwelt among men, or was incarnate, as 
the Son : and descended on the Apostles as the 
Spirit." So far as the Spirit is concerned, most 
modern Arians adopt this theory ; and tell us that 
the Holy Ghost and the Father are one, without 
any distinction of persons. But while this senti- 
ment is the more popular one among Arians, it is 
by no means universal. While some admit the 
Deity of the Spirit and deny his personality ; others 
deny both. It will be necessary, therefore, in con- 
sidering this subject, not only to show that the Holy 
Ghost is God, but that he is a distinct person from 
the Father and the Son. To the first of these points 
we now invite attention. 

I. Our Lord says, " God is a Spirit ;" and one of 



84 DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 

the most common names of the Holy Ghost is, " the 
Spirit of God." Now as God is a Spirit, and the 
Holy Ghost is a Spirit, they must be of the same 
nature, namely, Spirit. But as God himself is pure 
Spirit, he can have no spirit aside from his own 
being ; as the Spirit of a Spirit cannot exist as a 
distinct substance. The Spirit of God must there- 
fore be that God who is a spirit. 

The identity of the Spirit with the Godhead, is 
clearly taught 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11 — " For the Spirit 
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save 
the spirit of man which is in him ? even so the 
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of 
God." From this text Kinkade attempts to show 
that the Spirit of God occupies God's body as its 
soul ! It is true that the Apostle illustrates his 
views, by comparing the Spirit of God with the 
spirit of man ; but this comparison extends only to 
one or two points of agreement at most. 1. The 
Spirit only, knows the things of the Spirit. As no 
man fully opens his heart, and reveals all " the 
things of a man" to another, so " the things of God 
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 2. As 
the Spirit of man that is in him, is, in reality, the 
man ; so the Spirit of God that knoweth the things 
of God is God himself. But because there is a 
resemblance between the Spirit and the human 
soul, in one or two particulars, it is inferred that the 
analogy must be general ; and that God has a soul 
and body like human beings. 

II. 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17 — " Nevertheless when it (the 
heart) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken 
away. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and where the 
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Here ob- 
serve, 1. The Lord Jehovah is the Being to whom 



DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 85 

the Jews were to turn. 2. The Spirit spoken of, is 
the Spirit of God, by which we are changed into 
the image of the Lord, from glory to glory ; verse 
18th. 3. The Lord Jehovah, to whom the Jews 
were to turn, and the Spirit or Holy Ghost, are 
one. " Now the Lord is that Spirit." As the Lord 
Jehovah is the Spirit, the Spirit is the Lord ; or in 
other words, the Holy Ghost is God. 

III. Acts xxviii. 25 — " Well spake the Holy 
Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, say- 
ing, Go unto this people and say, Hearing ye shall 
hear," &c. Now by turning to the 6th of Isaiah, 
from which Paul quotes, we find that the Holy 
Ghost that spake by Esaias, was the Lord of hosts, 
the Jehovah of the Old Testament. " And I heard 
the voice of the Lord (Jehovah) saying, Whom 
shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said 
1, here am I ; send me. And he said, Go, and tell 
this people," &c. From a comparison of these pas- 
sages, it is certain that the Holy Ghost of the 
Apostle, is the Lord of hosts ; the Jehovah of the 
Bible. 

IV. The Holy Ghost is the Creator. "And 
the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the wa- 
ters"—" The Spirit of God hath made me"—" By 
his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens" — " Thou 
sendest forth thy Spirit, and they are created." 
These passages prove that the Holy Ghost is pos- 
sessed of creative power ; and the Arian must either 
substitute another " agent" or admit that the Holy 
Ghost is God, the Creator of all things. 

V. The Deity of the Spirit is implied, Matt. xii. 
31. " All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be for- 
given unto men; but the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And 
whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, 

8 



86 DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 

it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh 
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world nor in the world to come." 
Again : " He that shall blaspheme against the 
Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in dan- 
ger of eternal damnation." From these texts we 
learn that to sin against the Holy Ghost is an of- 
fence so peculiar, and so aggravated in its character, 
that the offender finds no forgiveness in time or in 
eternity. But how can this be accounted for, on 
the supposition that He is " a power, attribute, or 
emanation ?" Is it so peculiarly dangerous to speak 
against these that the offender can find no pardon ? 
The nature of this particular sin, and the penalty 
attached to it, show the dignity of the Holy Spirit, 
and clearly imply His supreme Divinity. 

VI. The Spirit is omniscient. " The Spirit 
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." 
What u power, attribute, emanation" or being is ca- 
pable of such knowledge but God only ? 

VII. The Holy Ghost is omnipresent. " Whith- 
er shall I go from thy Spirit ? or whither shall I flee 
from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven, 
thou art there : if I make my bed in hell, behold, 
thou art there," &c. He reproves the world of sin, 
and dwells in the hearts of all true believers ; and 
as God is the only omnipresent Being, the omni- 
presence of the Holy Ghost is proof of his Di- 
vinity. 

VIII. The Spirit of God is eternal " Christ, 
who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself," 
&c. God only is eternal ; therefore the " eternal 
Spirit" must be that eternal God, who is a Spirit. 

IX. The words Holy Ghost and God are used 
synonymously in the New Testament. " Know ye 
not that ye are the temple of God, and that the 



DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 87 

Spirit of God dwelleth in you % n w Your body is 
the temple of the Holy Ghost" — " Ye are the tem- 
ple of the living God? 1 — " Why hath Satan filled 
thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? Thou hast not 
lied unto men, but unto God" " Except a man be 
born — of the Spirit" — " so is every one that is born 
of the Spirit" " As many as received him were 
born — of God." '" All Scripture is given by inspi- 
ration of God :" — " Holy men of old spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost" " God shall raise 
the dead ;" — " It is the Spirit that quickeneth ;" — 
" shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
Spirit that dwelleth in you," &c, &c. This list 
might be greatly extended ; but the above passages 
are sufficient to show, that in the New Testament 
and the terms " God" " Holy Ghost" are interchanged, 
as signifying the same Divine person. 

X. Paul says, 2 Cor. iii. 5 — " But our suffi- 
ciency is of God, who also hath made us able min- 
isters of the New Testament." — Now, we learn 
from the 13th chap, of Acts, that this God, who 
made these ministers, was the Holy Ghost. " As 
they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy 
Ghost said, " Separate me Barnabas and Saul for 
the work whereunto I have called them ;— so they 
being sent forth by the Holy Ghost y departed." The 
conclusion from these passages is, that the Holy 
Ghost who called Paul and Barnabas to the minis- 
try, is the God by whom they were made minis- 
ters. 

XI. The Holy Ghost is recognized by the Apos- 
tles as possessing sovereign and absolute authority 
over the Church. Hence he called and sent forth 
Paul and Barnabas, as stated in the above texts ; 
and is referred to as the Ruler of the Church, and 
the person who appointed her officers. "For it 



88 DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 

seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay 
upon you no greater burthen than these necessary 
things :" — " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, 
and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost 
hath made you overseers." Now, the Scriptures 
represent the Church as " the Church of God," and 
her ministry as those who are " called of God, as 
was Aaron." We must therefore recognize the 
Holy Ghost as the God of the Christian Church. 

The substance of the testimony upon this point 
may be thus briefly summed up, We pray to the 
Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father and Son, in 
the Apostolic benediction. We are baptized in the 
name of the Holy Ghost — comforted by the Holy 
Ghost — converted and sanctified by him — led by 
the Spirit, and are to be raised by him in the last 
day. He is of the substance of God, a a Spirit" — 
the God to whom the Jews were to turn — the God 
who sent Isaiah — the omniscient, omnipresent, and 
Eternal Spirit — the Creator of all things — the God 
that dwells in believers — the God to whom Ana- 
nias lied — the God who inspired " holy men of 
old" — the God by whom Paul was made a minis- 
ter — the God insulted in the commission of the un- 
pardonable sin — the Jehovah of the Old Testa- 
ment, and the God and Governor of the Christian 
Church. We therefore acknowledge him as one 
of the u three that bear record in heaven ;" of one 
substance, majesty, and glory with the Father, and 
the Son, very and eternal God. 



THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 89 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON FROM THE 
FATHER. 

Having established the proper Divinity of the 
Holy Spirit, we shall now proceed to show that he 
is a distinct person from the Father and the Son. It 
will be recollected, that one class of Arians admit 
that the Holy Ghost is God, but deny his person- 
ality. They maintain that he is God's soul, dwell- 
ing in a body in the shape of man — a doctrine 
which we have elsewhere identified as a species 
of Sabellianism, and which need not here be recon- 
sidered. 

Before we proceed to argue the subject of this 
chapter, it may be necessary again to remind the 
reader of the sense in which we use the term per- 
son^ as we apply it to the Holy Ghost. By person 
we do not mean body, as do Arians, or a human 
being ; but simply one of the three that bear re- 
cord in heaven. We mean that the Holy Ghost is 
a person as the Father and Word are persons ; and 
that these three Divine persons constitute the one 
Eternal Being, the God of heaven and earth. For 
further remarks upon this point, see Chapter II. 

We now proceed to consider the personality of 
the Holy Spirit. In doing so we shall not only 
oppose the notion that he is a mere attribute or 
power ; but also the still more absurd one that he is 
the soul of God. His distinct personality appears 
from the following considerations : — 

I. The Holy Ghost is a mind or intelligence. 
" And he that searcheth the heart, knoweth what is 
the mind of the Spirit." Here the term " mind? is 
8* 



90 THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 

used to denote an intellectual state, as will, purpose, 
or inclination ; which state could not exist, unless 
the spirit was a mind. But as it is impossible for 
mind to exist without personality, the Holy Ghost 
must be a person. 

II. The Spirit has intelligence or knowledge. 
" For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep 
things of God ; the things of God knoweth no 
man but the Spirit of God." This text shows that 
the Spirit of God " knows" the things of God, as 
perfectly as the soul of man knows the things of 
man. Searching and knowing are indubitable evi- 
dences of intelligence ; and, as there can be no in- 
telligence without personality, it follows that the 
Holy Ghost is not a mere attribute or power, but an 
intelligent or distinct person. 

III. The Holy Ghost has a will. " But all these 
worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing 
to every man severally as he willP If an " organ," 
" energy," " power," or " attribute," can have a will. 
this text is of no force in our cause ; but if they 
cannot, and if will always implies personality, then 
the Holy Ghost cannot be any of these, merely, 
but is a knowing, self-willing person. 

IV. The Scriptural distinction between the Holy 
Ghost and the Father, is as clear as between the 
Son and the Father. " The grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of 
the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." Here 
the Spirit is mentioned as distinct from the Father 
and Son ; and, on either of the modern Arian hy- 
potheses, the text must not only be unmeaning, but 
a specimen of the most flagrant tautology. Mil- 
lard says, the Holy Ghost is a 'personified something. 
If so, the meaning of the benediction is, " The 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, (a creature,) and the 



THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 91 

love of God, and the communion of an l attribute, 
power, energy, organ,' or something else, be with 
you all. Amen." What a benediction ! The 
grace of a " creature" and the communion of a per- 
sonified " organ ! !" 

But Kinkade makes it still worse. His theory is, 
that Christ is a creature, and the Holy Ghost the 
soul of " God's body." According to his theory, 
we should read, " The grace of the ' first creature 
that was born into existence,' the love of the ' body 
of God,' and the communion of l his soul] be with 
you all. Amen !" A real Arian blessing I Nor 
can these sickening absurdities be avoided by any 
theory that denies the Deity of Christ, and the per- 
sonality and Deity of the Holy Spirit. 

Again — " Go, ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Millard would 
say, " In the name of the Father, and of a creature, 
and of a personified attribute ;" and Kinkade and 
Perry, " In the name of the body of God ; a crea- 
ture; and the soul of God." Sabellianism proper 
would say, " In the name of God, and of God, and 
of God ;" as it teaches that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, are one Divine person. 

We have the same proof from the apostolic bene- 
diction, that the Holy Ghost is a distinct person 
from the Father, that we have of the personality 
of the Son, When a certain Arian minister was 
urged to explain this matter, and show why these 
three titles were used in this connection, if the Holy 
Ghost was the soul of the Father, he replied, " Be- 
cause they are the three greatest names in the 
Christian dispensation ! ! !" Now, we wonder not 
that his answer was so vague and unmeaning, but 
ihai he was able to give any answer at all \ for it 



92 THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 

is certain that no reason can be assigned why the 
Holy Ghost should he distinguished from the Father 
and the Son ? in the apostolic benediction and bap- 
tismal formula, except that he is an equally distinct 
person in the Godhead. 

V. The same arguments that are used by Arians 
to proTe that Christ is a distinct being from God ? 
may be adduced to show that the Holy Ghost is a 
distinct person. It is often remarked that God gave 
his Son — sent his Son, &c. ; and is then asked, with 
an air of triumph, u Did God give himself and send 
himself V 7 That these circumstances prove Christ 
to be a distinct person from the Father, we admit j 
but they do not prove him to be a distinct being. 
But do not the same circumstances prove the per- 
sonality of the Spirit ? Our a heavenly Father*' is 
to give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him ;" and 
Peter says, " the Holy Ghost" was "• sent down from 
heaven." Paul says, God has u given the earnest 
of the Spirit ;" and the disciples had the promise, 
that the Comforter should be sent Now we ask, 
in turn, Did the Father give himself? or, Did he 
send himself ? Was it the Father that was poured 
out on the day of Pentecost ? 

So sure, then, as Christ is a distinct person from 
the Father, so sure the Holy Ghost is also ; and, if 
Arians would be consistent with themselves, they 
would not only call him a distinct person, but a dis- 
tinct being- — perhaps a "creature" and an "agent." 

VI. The Holy Ghost is represented as being sub- 
ject to the Son ] as the Son is subject to the Father, 
in his official character in the work of redemption. 
" If I go not away, n said Jesus, " the Comforter will 
xiot come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send him 
Mnto you." " But when the Comforter is come, ■ 
Njrfiom I will send unto you from the Father, eve© 



THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 93 

the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Fa- 
ther, he shall testify of me." " But the Comforter, 
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will 
send in my name, he shall teach you all things." 
u I will pray the Father, and he will give you an- 
other Comforter," &c. 

How can these passages be reconciled with the 
notion that the Holy Ghost is the Father ? or the 
soul of a material God ? Did a creature send the 
Father into the world "from the Father ?" or did 
the Father send himself in the name of a creature ? 
Did a creature pray to God to send his soul into the 
world, and leave his forsaken body literally seated 
on a throne, to receive the homage of angels'? 
How must this theory distort the word of God, even 
in the minds of Arians themselves. It is revolting 
to all piety, to contemplate its absurdities. What 
confusion and embarrassment attend on Arianism 
at every step ! No wonder its votaries often meet 
each other in open hostility, when once they enter 
its dark labyrinths. 

From the above passages, it is clear that the Holy 
Ghost is a distinct person from the Father ; and is 
sent from the Father by the Son ; or by the Father in 
the name of Christ. 

VII. The personal acts of the Holy Ghost prove 
him to be a person. The Spirit " searcheth all 
things" — " knoweth" the deep things of God — exer- 
cises his " will 11 in distributing spiritual gifts — u com- 
munes''' with the saints — is " given" by the Father, 
and "sent" into the world — "spake" by Esaias — 
beareth " witness" — makes " intercession" — " testifies" 
of Christ — is "grieved" — u moved" the Prophets to 
write — created all things — " made" the Apostles min- 
isters and overseers, and consequently governs the 
Church — " reproves" the world of sin — converts sin- 



94 THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 

ners — sanctifies believers — comforts the afflicted— 
covenants with believers in baptism, and raises the 
dead. These acts as clearly imply the personality 
of the Spirit, as they imply his existence. 

But it is replied, that the Holy Ghost is personified, 
as inanimates objects are personified in figurative 
language. Even Kinkade takes this ground with 
strange inconsistency. In one part of his book he 
says, " God's Spirit is mentioned to signify God's 
self. By vexing the Lord's Holy Spirit, they vexed 
the Lord, therefore the Lord's Spirit was the Lord. 
God and the Holy Spirit are the same person. — 
The Holy Spirit is something more than a mere 
quality, it is real being, and yet not a distinct per- 
son from the Father." See " Thoughts on the Holy 
Spirit." 

After arguing for seven pages that the Holy 
Spirit is the Father, without any distinction of per- 
sons, he suddenly shifts his ground, and denies that 
the Holy Ghost is a person! "Some suppose," 
says he, tt that because the Holy Spirit is called a 
witness, it must therefore be a person. If the Holy 
Spirit is a person, he must he inferior to Christ, be- 
cause he [Christ] had power to send him. If the 
Holy Spirit and the Father are one, and the self- 
same Being, I cannot see how he, as a person, could 
proceed from him." In this passage, Mr. K. vir- 
tually denies that the Holy Ghost is a person. 
He believes him to be "something more than a 
mere quality," a "a real being" — the soul of God ? 
and really God ; and yet he is not a person. But 
as Mr. K. always uses the term person in the Arian 
sense ; that is, to signify body ; the mystery is ex- 
plained. His meaning is, that the Holy Ghost has 
not a body ; or, in other words, that God has not 
two bodies* 



THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 95 

Leaving this rickety hypothesis to fall to pieces 
of its own weight, we dwell for a moment on one 
more feature, and close this chapter. 

We deny that the Holy Spirit is invested with 
the attributes of an intelligent person by personifica- 
tion. To show that objects are thus invested in 
figurative language, is a useless task, as no one 
denies it But let it be proved that this is the case 
in one instance where the acts of the Spirit are men- 
tioned. If these acts are only ascribed to the Spirit 
figuratively, then of course they were never really 
performed. The works of conviction, conversion, 
sanctification, and resurrection, must then be mere 
figurative representations. If this be true, the 
whole Bible is an allegory, and we may deny the 
literal reality of any thing and every thing in the 
whole range of Christianity itself. All that would 
be left for us, would be a figurative conversion, 
sanctification, salvation, God, heaven, and hell ! 
Such are the legitimate fruits of the Arian theory. 

But we turn with delight from these bewildering 
vagaries, to the sober realities of the Bible. A 
doctrine that cannot stand by the plain and explicit 
declarations of that Holy Book, without the aid of 
a licentious criticism, is unworthy of God, and 
dangerous to man. But, as the Holy Ghost is there 
revealed to us as a searching, knowing, willing, 
speaking, creating, convicting, converting, and sanc- 
tifying mind, distinct from the Father and the Son, 
his personality is as obvious as that of the Father. 
We therefore regard him, not as an imaginary be- 
ing, existing only in poetic conception ; but as an 
acting, knowing, converting, and sanctifying Spirit, 
really and personally existing. May the Holy Ghost 
be merciful to such as deny his personal and real 
existence ; and may he so lift the veil from off their 



96 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 

hearts, as to convince them of their error and unbe- 
lief ; lead them to embrace the truth as it is in 
Christ ; and enable them to go on full of faith and 
of the Holy Ghost to their lives' end. 



CHAPTER IX 

THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 

In the early part of this work we proved the 
absolute unity of the Divine Being — a unity that 
utterly precludes the possibility of more than one 
God. We were also particular to show that while 
Arians deny the proper unity of God, by holding to 
two Divinities, we acknowledge but one God, while 
we hold that this one God exists as three persons. 
By person we do not mean a distinct and indepen- 
dent being, as we have elsewhere shown, but merely 
one of those distinctions in the Godhead that are 
revealed to us as Father, Word, and Holy Ghost. 
In this sense we proved the Holy Ghost to be a 
person, and also established his Divinity. We had 
previously shown that Christ had two natures, in 
one of which he was man ; and that in his higher 
and pre-existent nature he was verily and really 
God. These two main points, then, we consider as 
fully established in the preceding pages. 

I. That there is but one living and true God ; and 

II. That while the Scriptures insist upon one God 
only, they reveal three distinct persons, of one 
substance, power, and eternity ; and invested with every 
characteristic and attribute of Supreme Divinity. 

Neither of these positions can be abandoned, 



THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 97 

unless wo abandon the Word of God. They must 
therefore be reconciled ; and in order to this we are 
obliged to conclude that these three Divine persons — 
the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost — co-exist in a 
manner incomprehensible to mortals, as one supreme 
and everlasting God. This is the doctrine of the 
Trinity. And how can we reject it, so long as we 
believe the Scriptures ? Can we deny the unity ? 
The Bible says there is but one God. Can we deny 
the plurality ? The Bible teaches the Divinity of 
the Son, and the personality and Divinity of the 
Holy Ghost. What, then, can we do but believe 
in a Trinity ? or that these three Divine persons 
constitute the one infinite and eternal Being. 

Solid as are the premises from which this conclu- 
sion is drawn, we are not without further proofs of 
a plurality of persons in the Godhead. To these 
additional evidences we now invite attention. 

I. The Scriptures speak in a number of places 
of the " Godhead" — a title of Deity which of itself 
conveys an idea of plurality as well as of unity. 
" We ought not to think the Godhead is like unto 
gold'"' — " Even his eternal power and Godhead" — 
" In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead." 
Now if this title is not used to represent the Divine 
Being, as distinguished from either of the persons 
which constitute the Deity, why not use the term 
Father, or God, instead of Godhead ? Does not 
this title convey an idea of plurality, even to the 
minds of Arians themselves? and is not this the 
reason why they seldom or never use the term ? 

II. " In the beginning God created the heavens 
and the earth." On this passage an eminent critic 
observes, " The very first name in the Scriptures 
under which the Divine Being is introduced to us 
is a plural one." Dr. A. Clark says. " The original 

9 



98 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOB. 

word is certainly in the plural form, and has long 
been supposed^ by the most eminent, learned, and 
pious men, to imply a plurality of persons in the 
Divine Nature," 

III. " And God said, let us make man in our 
image, after our likeness." Here the pronouns 
ci us" and " our" show that there is a plurality of 
persons in the one Divine Being. Mr. Millard says, 
" the plurality of these expressions does not neces- 
sarily imply more than two, and as God made all 
things by Jesus Christ, [alluding to the agency 
scheme,] it appears evident to me that it was the 
Son to whom he spake." Mr. Perry endorses his 
opinion. Kinkade accounts for tkese plural expres- 
sions and titles by supposing that God imitated the 
dignitaries of earth in saying us, our, we, &c. He 
says, " In Hebrew, as well as in all other languages, a 
King, an Emperor, or any other person of great dig- 
nity, is frequently mentioned in the plural number. 
Thus, the King of Spain says, i We, Ferdinand, the 
Seventh. 1 The King of France says, < We, Charles 
the Tenth. 1 The Emperors of Russia say, ' We, Alex- 
ander, 1 or i We, Nicholas 1 " According to this ex- 
positor, then, the Almighty has anticipated the re- 
finements of earthly courts, and has followed the prac- 
tice of kings, thousands of years before this practice 
was in vogue. Such an argument needs no refuta- 
tion. But Mr. M.'s scheme is equally exceptionable. 

1. The creation of man is represented as the 
work of all the persons indicated by the term " usP 
"Let us make man," not " do thou, my agent, make 
man." To say that only one of these persons was 
engaged in the work, is to contradict the text. 

2. Man was to be made in the image of all these 
persons. " Let us make man in our image," &c. 
Mr. M. admits that there were two persons, namely 



THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 99 

the Father and the Son ; though Kinkade says 
there was but one. Now as the image of the Fa- 
ther and the Son is expressly stated to be " the 
image of God," it follows that these persons are 
God : or there is a plurality of persons in the God- 
head. The same conclusion follows from another 
view of the text If a plurality of persons made 
man — as the Scriptures affirm by the use of the 
term u us" — and God made man, as is expressly 
declared ; it follows that God exists in a plurality 
of persons. 

IV. u And the Lord God said, behold the man is 
become as one of us, to know good from evil. 3 ' If 
there be not a plurality of persons in the Godhead, 
why say, " like one of us . ? " 

V. " Go to, let us go down and there confound 
their language." On this text observe, 1. More per- 
sons than one came down ; " Let us go down." 
2. When these Divine persons came down, they 
were nothing more or less than Jehovah himself; 
for it is written, " The Lord came down to see the 
city — the Lord did there confound their language." 
Now as there was a plurality of persons that came 
down, and these persons were " the Lord ;" it fol- 
lows that there is a plurality of persons in the God- 
head ; or that the one God of the Bible exists in a 
plurality of persons. 

But while one class of Scriptures reveal & plural- 
ity in the Godhead, without definitely showing the 
extent of that plurality, another class reveals a plu- 
rality, and restricts it to three ; identifying the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost as the three Divine 
persons of the Godhead. Some of these passages 
will now be considered. 

VI. In the 6th chapter of Isaiah, the Prophet 
speaks of a vision in which he had seen " the King, 



100 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOB. 

the Lord of hosts." At the 8th verse he says, "I 
heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I 
send, and who will go for us ? Then said I, here 
am I, send me. And he said, go and tell this peo- 
ple, Hear ye indeed but understand not ; and see ye 
indeed but perceive not. Make the heart of this 
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their 
eyes ; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with 
their ears, and understand with their hearts, and 
convert and be healed." On this passage we offer 
the following observations : 

1 . There was but .one Being that sent Isaiah, 
and that Being was " the Lord of hosts." 

2. In this one Being, there is a plurality of per- 
sons. u Whom shall I send, and who will go for 
us V Here, then, both the unity and plurality of the 
Godhead are distinctly revealed. 

3. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were 
present, as constituting "the Lord of hosts," can 
be easily proved. That the Father was included, 
no one will deny. In the 12th chapter of John, 
the above message delivered to Isaiah is quoted : 
verse 40th ; after which it is said, " These things 
said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of 
him: Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also 
many believed on Aim," but " did not confess him^ 
&c. Here the pronouns " his" and " him' 1 refer to 
Christ as their antecedent, as any one can see who 
will read verses 36 and 42 inclusive. " These things 
spake Jesus" — " spake of him" — " believed on him" 
— " did not confess him" &c. We have then this 
clear proof, that the Lord of hosts, whose glory 
Isaiah saw, and of whom he spake, was the Lord 
Jesus Christ ; or that the Son was present as one 
person in the Godhead. 

4. That the Holy Ghost, the third person in the 



THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 101 

Trinity, was also present, appears from Acts xxviii. 
25. " Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the 
prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this peo- 
ple and say, Hearing ye shall hear," &c, repeating 
the same message that God gave to Isaiah in the 
above vision. Here the message of the Lord of 
^osts, is said to have been the speech of the Holy 
*'*<»?t. Of course, then, the Holy Ghost was pre- 
** i also on this memorable occasion. 

>Ve have then direct proof from the word of 
5 -*'jd, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were 
^;gether engaged in securing an ambassador, and 
-.ending this message to ancient Israel ; and that 
chese three Divine persons constituted the one 
^ Lord of hosts" mentioned by Isaiah. Hence the 
expression, ; * Whom shall I," the Lord of hosts, 
- send ; and who will go for us" — Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost. Well might adoring Seraphim 
salute this triune Lord and give equal honor to 
each of the Divine persons, as they cried "Holy,- 
Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts ; the whole earth 
is full of his glory." Let us imitate the example 
of these celestial worshippers ; and while they as- 
cribe equal glory, majesty, and dominion, to each 
of the Divine persons, as constituting the one Lord 
of hosts ; let us on earth respond to the glorious 
sentiment, and render our tribute of feebler praise 
as we sing, 

"Hail J Father, Sou, and Holy Ghost, 
One God in persons three ; 
Of thee we joyful make our boast, 
And homage pay to thee." 

VII. " For there are three that bear record in 
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, 
and these three are one." In reply to this strong 



102 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOP. 

text, Arians generally deny that it is a portion of the 
word of God. Kinkade and Millard deny its genu- 
ineness, the former saying, " I have no doubt but the 
passage is an interpolation ;" and the latter, with an 
air of triumph, i4 Dr. Adam Clarke, the Methodist 
commentator, gives up the passage as spurious." 
Mark the expression, " the Methodist commentator," m 
if the Methodists had but one commentator, and he 
was decidedly against them. But supposing it were 
so, what then ? Are we bound to follow Dr. Clarke 
or any other man, as an infallible interpreter ? We 
acknowledge him as a great and good man — we 
learn all we can from his excellent writings ; but 
after all, it is the right of every Protestant Chris- 
tian, to read the Bible and think for himself; and 
in the exercise of this right we become Trinita- 
rians. As a denomination the Methodists have 
never received Clarke's views of the Sonship, or 
of the foreknowledge of God ; and we are far from 
. adopting his opinion respecting the above text. It 
is true that some modern writers, on the subject of 
the Trinity, do not urge this text in proof of their 
doctrine. But this is not because they think it 
spurious. They know it to be a disputed text, and 7 
like Dr. Clarke, feel that they have proof enough 
without it. But we are under no obligation to give 
it up as a forgery, simply because Dr. Clarke does. 
The substance of Kinkade's u reasons" for rejecting 
this passage, is, the opinion of Dr. Clarke ; a dis- 
covery which Mr. K. says was made in the East by 
Mr. Buchanan ; a note in the " improved, v or Arian 
version of the New Testament ; and the expulsion 
of the text from the Campbellite New Testament, 
another Arian work. This last is mentioned as a 
mere translation by Campbell, (not Alexander,) 
Doddridge, and McNight ; which has been reprinted 



THREE PERSONS IX ONE GOD. 103 

by Alexander Campbell of Virginia. The fact 
seems to be, that u Campbell, Doddridge and 
McNight" never published any joint translation of 
the New Testament ; that A. Campbell has given 
his version to the world, as the work of these men : 
and that instead of its being a " reprint" of their 
version, it is almost exclusively his own perform- 
ance. But to return : If the genuineness of the 
above text is to depend on the opinion of commen- 
tators, we must consult others besides Dr. Clarke ; 
and see if the scales may not be balanced in its 
favor. 

1. Rev. Richard Watson says, " The recent re- 
vival of the inquiry into the genuineness of this 
text, however, shows that the point is far from be- 
ing critical??; settled against the passage as a true 
portion of Holy Writ, and the argument from the 
context is altogether in favor of those who advo- 
cate itP 

2. Dn. Thomas Coke says : — u The anti-trini- 
tarian heretic tremble? at this passage : it is a thun- 
derstroke to him. of which he well knows the 
weight : therefore he leaves no means untried to 
turn it aside, or to avoid it. The chief mode has 
been to deny that the text was written by St. John ; 
and under pretence that it does not appear in all 
the ancient manuscripts of this Epistle, and that 
some of the fathers who formerly wrote against the 
Arians, did not avail themselves of it in proof of 
Christ's Divinity, the heretics of the present day 
deny the authenticity of the text. But the cause 
must be very desperate which can allege no better 
reasons against the strength and evidence of a text 
of Scripture. For, to give any force to such an ar- 
gument, it would be necessary to show, that the 
passage in question existed but in very few manu 



104 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 

scripts, or at least, only in those of a modern date, 
and of small authority, and that it was unknown in 
all Christian antiquity; but the fact is, that this 
passage is found in a great number of manuscripts, 
and those the most ancient ; and is quoted in books 
of the most venerable ecclesiastical antiquity, and 
all much older than those manuscripts that do not 
contain the passage. But not to mention St. Je- 
rome, who found it in the Greek manuscript of the 
New Testament, from which he made his Latin 
versions, in which we find it also, and a long com- 
ment upon it in his Preface to the canonical Epis- 
tles ; we find it cited in proof of the Trinity in 
the Confession of Faith, presented about the end of 
the fifth century by the bishops of the African 
churches to Huneric king of the Vandals, an 
Arian, and a great persecutor of the orthodox de- 
fenders of the Trinity. Now, would it not have 
been the most unexampled piece of imprudence in 
those bishops, purposely to expose themselves to the 
rage of Huneric, and of all the Arian party, by al- 
ledgingf in so solemn a piece as the Confession of 
Faith, this passage of St. John, if it had not been 
universally extant in all the manuscripts of the 
day, or if it had been forged ? Doubtless the Arian 
would sufficiently have triumphed in such a dis- 
covery ; and it is clear, that nothing but the truth 
and notoriety of the facts could have silenced those 
heretics. Neither could the citation of the passage 
at that time have been regarded as a new thing, or 
of doubtful authority ; for it was more than 250 
years before, that St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 
and a celebrated martyr, who nourished but a little 
more than a hundred years before John, had quoted 
it in his Treatise on the Unity of the Church ; and 
all the printed editions of Cyprian's works, as well 



THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 105 

as the most ancient manuscripts of that father of the 
Church, constantly contain that citation, which is a 
certain mark of its authenticity. Lastly, to go still 
farther back, we find Tertullian, who was before 
St. Cyprian, mentioning it in his dispute against 
Praxeas. Now, since nothing reasonable can be 
objected against a passage quoted by such celebrated 
writers, one of whom is Tertullian, who flourished 
towards the conclusion of the very same century in 
which St. John died, it is a certain proof that these 
words were extant in the very first manuscripts." 

3. Rev. John Wesley was fully satisfied of the 
genuineness of this text. He says, " What Ben- 
gelius has advanced, both concerning the transposi- 
tion of these two verses, and the authority of the 
controverted verse, will abundantly satisfy any im- 
partial reader." He calls Bengelius " the most pi- 
ous, the most judicious, the most laborious, of all 
modern commentators on the New Testament." 
" For some years," says Mr. Wesley, " he stood in 
doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in 
many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were 
removed by three considerations : — 1st. That though 
it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more, 
and those copies of the greatest authority. 2d. It 
is cited by a whole train of ancient writers, from 
the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This 
argument is conclusive, for they could not have 
cited it, had it not been in the sacred canon. 3d. 
That we can easily account for its being, after that 
time, wanting in many copies, when we remember 
that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, 
who used every means to promote his bad cause, to 
spread Arianism throughout the empire ; in parti- 
cular, the erasing this text out of as many copies as 
fell into his hands." No doubt this was the case j 



106 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 

and a similar course would be adopted by modern 
Arians, were it not for public opinion. Mr. A. 
Campbell has substantially tried the experiment, in 
publishing his version of the New Testament ; and 
some of our citizens have had it in their houses for 
some months, before they knew that it was anything 
less than the whole truth. But, on looking for 1 
John v. 7, the " improved version" is found want- 
ing. Such an expedient is certainly unworthy of 
any good cause ; and can only be resorted to by 
those who consider theirs a desperate one. 

4. In an ancient commentary in our possession, 
the name of whose author is lost from the work, 
the text is explained without a hint that it was ever 
disputed. 

5. Scott and Henry, in their commentaries, 
vindicate the text as legitimate. 

6. The learned Valpy, in his Critical Notes on 
the Greek Testament, defends this text as genuine, 
and refers to Pearson, Stillingfleet, Bull, Grab, Mill, 
Bengelius, Ernesti, Horsley, Nolan, and Bishop 
Burgess, as of his opinion. He also quotes the re- 
mark of Dr. Hey, that " the text might be more 
easily expunged unfairly, than admitted unfairly." 
This is obvious to every candid mind. That it 
might be expunged by the opposers of the doctrine 
it contains, is certain ; but, that Trinitarians should 
forge a new text, and insert it in the manuscripts, 
and yet nothing be said of it at the time by their 
opponents, is impossible. We must therefore have 
more testimony before we erase this Trinitarian text 
from our Bibles. 

7. This text stands in the German Bible, printed 
in 1602 (a reprint of a much older edition) with 
out any mark of doubt. This shows the opinion of 



THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD 107 

the German divines and commentators of that age ; 
and also of the preceding century. 

8. The bare insertion of this text, in our English 
Bibles, is strong evidence that it is a true portion of 
the word of God. Was it only a word, or a phrase, 
the case would be different ; but it is a whole verse. 
When we consider that the Bible was translated 
from the Greek and Hebrew more than two hundred 
years ago ; when sectarianism was dormant to what 
it now is; ihaX forty-seven of the most learned men 
on the globe were engaged in this work for more 
than three years, " neither coveting praise for expedi- 
tion, nor fearing reproach for slackness ;" — that they 
had all the manuscripts that could now be had, if 
not many more, and every facility which the British 
empire could furnish or procure — when we consi- 
der all these things, we are not prepared to admit 
that they have sent down to posterity a forged 
Bible ; or that they were less honest or learned 
than our Arian expositors. 

Finally, We should suppose they would be 
among the last to attempt to invalidate any portion 
of the New Testament. They boast of it as their 
" Discipline," and yet they are ever and anon try- 
ing to prove certain portions of it, that cannot be 
conformed to their views, incorrect, counterfeit and 
forged. If there is any advantage in having a 
genuine confession of faith and a genuine Bible, 
we certainly have it. Out Bibles and creeds are 
genuine, while those of the Arians are in part a 
forgery, they themselves being judges. 

The above summary of testimony is sufficient to 
show the slight ground upon which 1 John v. 7, is 
rejected by those who dislike its doctrine. Though 
it is but a part of what might be urged, it will 
doubtless be sufficient for the sincere inquirer after 



108 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 

truth ; and the obstinacy which rejects this evi- 
dence, is probably too far gone to be benefited by 
proof or argument. Having vindicated the text as 
a genuine portion of the word of God, we shall now 
procee4 to consider its doctrine. 

In the first member of the text, it is asserted, that 
" there are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." Here 
notice ; the second person is not called the Son or 
Christ — titles usually applied to the Saviour to ex- 
press his complex character — but "the Word," a 
title that signifies the pre-existent nature only. Had 
he been called the Son, or Christ, titles which in- 
clude both natures, John could not have said " these 
three are one," as the humanity of Christ never was 
one with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Again, 
these three Divine persons are mentioned in the 
usual scriptural order, without any sign of inferi- 
ority on the part of any of them, the work attributed 
to them being common to them all. The three 
" bear record ;" the Word and the Holy Ghost doing 
all that the Father does, 

Secondly, It is declared in this passage that " these 
three" namely, the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, 
tl are one." Is it possible more clearly to state the 
doctrine of the Trinity, without much circumlocu- 
tion ? The text says there are three ; names each 
of the three separately ; and declares that they are 
one. Here then we have three in one — a plurality 
and unity in one Being, or three persons in one God. 
This is the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Plain and guarded as is this text at every point, 
Arians deny that it contains the above doctrine. 
This, however, is nothing strange. As a matter of 
course, if they cannot impeach those passages that 
are in the way of their system, some plan must be 



THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 109 

devised to pervert their meaning- ; and turn aside 
those " thunderbolts" that would otherwise rive their 
frail tenement in pieces. But let us examine the 
Arian exposition of the text. 

1. Mr. Millard tells us, p. 17, that it points out a 
: - oneness of union." What the man means by a 
i; oneness of union," we know not. If he means 
that there is but one union in the Divine Being, 
very well. We believe that by one eternal union 
the three Divine Persons are so united as to be one 
God. 

2. It is said that these three are one in the sense 
that Christians are one with Christ and with each 
other. In support of this position the following 
texts are quoted : 

(1.) "Neither pray I for these alone; but for 
them also which shall believe on me through thy 
word : That they all may be one ; as thou Father 
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one 
in us : — that they may be one, even as we are one, 
. I in them, and thou in us, that they may be perfect 
in one ; and that the world may know that thou 
hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast lov- 
ed me." — John xvii. 20 — 23. That the unity here 
spoken of is oneness of mind and spirit we admit. 
This is the only unity among Christians, that could 
prove that Christ was the true Messiah, and that 
his religion was from heaven. We also admit 
that Christ and the Father are one in this sense. 
This text speaks of an agreement between trie- 
Father and the Son, like that of Christians that are 
made " perfect in one ;" but the subject treated of in 
1 John v. 7, is altogether different. Hence it is a 
violation of a just rule of interpretation, to explain 
the latter by the former. 

(2.) 1 Cor. iii. 7, 8. « So then, neither is he that 
10 



110 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 



planteth anything, neither he that water eth ; but 
God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth 
and he that water eth are one ; and every man shall 
receive his own reward, according to his own labor." 
The argument raised on this text by Arians is, that 
as Paul and Apollos are one, and yet tw r o distinct 
beings, so the three mentioned 1 John v. 7, are one, 
and yet not one being. Now we deny that there is 
the least analogy between the two texts ; or that the 
oneness mentioned in them has the slightest resem- 
blance. The Corinthians had been saying one to 
another, " I am of Paul and I of Apollos." Paul 
considered this " carnal," as it was giving them that 
glory as ministers which they could not receive. 
Hence he says, "I have planted, Apollos watered, 
but God gave the increase. So then, neither is he 
that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but 
God that giveth the increase." Now we ask in 
what sense were Paul and Apollos one ? Has this 
text any reference to their being of one mind, or of 
one spirit? By no means. They were one in of- 
fice, dignity and nature ; and consequently occupied 
one ground, being mere agents by whom the Corin- 
thians heard the gospel and were saved. Hence the 
question : " Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, 
but ministers by whom ye believed ?" How plain 
that they were one only in reference to their office. 
and condition as ministers ; and their unworthiness to 
receive the honor that was proffered them. But are 
the " three that bear record in heaven" one in this 
sense ? Are they one as mere agents, occupying one 
ground, and filling one office? It is useless to waste 
time upon this point, as every one must see that this 
passage has nothing to do with the doctrine of the 
Trinity, and should never be pressed into the ser- 
vice of Arianism. 



h 



THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. Ill 

(3.) Gal. iii. 28. " There is neither Jew nor 
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
neither male nor female : for ye are all one in 
Christ Jesus." Here the unity spoken of in the 
latter part of the text, must be directly opposed to 
the plurality spoken of in the former part. The 
Church at Galatia was composed of " Jews, Greek, 
bond, free, male and female," who had abandoned 
their former religions, respectively, and become "the 
children of God by faith." Now the doctrine of the 
text is, that as the Galatians had been "baptised 
into Jesus Christ," and had " put on Christ," it was 
their duty to merge all former peculiarities, titles, 
and attachments in the one common cause ; and as 
they were now the children of God by faith in Christ 
Jesus, they must be one m faith, hope, affection and 
doctrine. In this sense they were " all one in Christ 
Jesus." But are the "three that bear record in 
Heaven," "one" in this sense? Have they hereto- 
fore entertained different opinions, and belonged to 
different nations? Have they abandoned different 
systems of religion and become " all one in Christ 
Jesus." How trifling to assert that the Father, Word 
and Holy Ghost are one in any such sense. 

But suppose we admit for a moment that the three 
in 1 John v. 7, are one as Christians are one in 
the above passages, Would it not utterly overthrow 
Arianism ? These Christians were one in nature, 
being all really human. Now if the sacred " three" 
are one in this sense, they are of course of one sub- 
stance, power, and eternity, with the Father ; and 
are all truly and properly Divine. 

Again, if the Holy Ghost and the Father are one 
as Paul and Apollos were one, they must be two 
distinct persons, a point which Arians deny. They 
must therefore either cease to explain 1 John v. 7, 



112 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 

by the above texts, or admit that the Holy Ghost is 
a distinct person in the Godhead, and that the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost are of one nature, truly 
and really Divine. 

(4.) There is evidence in the text itself, and in 
the context, that the " three" cannot be " one" in the 
Arian sense. At the eighth verse it is said of the 
" spirit, the water, and the blood," that " these three 
agree in one." Now if the Father, Word, and 
Spirit, are one only in the sense of agreement, why 
is it not said that they " agree in one ?" Why say, 
" these three are one ?" 

(5.) Finally, Our opponents are extremely in- 
consistent in their opposition to this passage. They 
first tell us that it was "forged" and inserted by 
Trinitarians, on purpose to prove their doctrine ; 
and the next breath they affirm that the text has no 
reference whatever to the doctrine of the Trinity ! 
Why then was it inserted? Could a Trinity be 
proved by a text that had no reference to that sub- 
ject ? If, as Arians say, the text was inserted by 
Trinitarians to prove their doctrine, it must certain- 
ly contain the doctrine of the Trinity ; and if not 
thus inserted, it is genuine, and Arians should cease 
to reject it as spurious. 

But we must close these remarks. We have 
shown that 1 John v. 7, is a genuine portion of the 
word of God ; and that it clearly and fully teaches 
the doctrine of the Trinity. This is the only ob- 
ject for which it was introduced, and we will now 
dismiss it. In spite of every effort to erase this text 
from the Bible, or to explain away its meaning, the 
truth still blazes forth from the pages of inspiration, 
that " there are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these 

THREE ARE ONE." 






THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 113 

VIII. A third text that recognizes the Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost as persons in the Godhead, is 
Mat. xxviii. 19, " Go ye therefore and teach all 
nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The Chris- 
tian Church is the Church of God, and her ministers 
are God's servants, to preach His word and administer 
His ordinances in His name. In baptism the candidate 
enters into solemn covenant with God, promising to 
serve him all the days of his life ; on the fulfilment of 
which promise God is pledged to bless him in life and 
death, and to save him eternally in heaven. The 
visible " sign" and " seal" of this covenant, is bap- 
tism ; and God authorizes his ministers to apply 
this seal in His name, to all proper subjects. Now 
in the formula appointed by God himself, to be 
used by his ministers on such occasions, they are ex- 
pressly taught to baptize in the name of three Divine 
Persons. What they do in the name of the Lord, 
they do in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. Now if there be no Trinity, why this Trin- 
itarian formula, where the candidate covenants with 
God only ? Must we be baptized in the name of 
the Father, a creature and an attribute ? This is 
the Arian sense of the text. But one class of Arians 
have so fallen out with this Trinitarian ceremony, 
as to reject it altogether in baptism ; and in its place 
to substitute " I baptize thee unto the remission of 
sins" omitting the three Divine Persons, and doing 
the work in their own name, rather than in the 
name of the Trinity. 

IX. The prayer addressed to God in the Apos- 
tolic benediction, is addressed to three Divine Per- 
sons. " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
Ghost be with you all. Amen." 2 Cor. xiii. 14, 

10* 



THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 

That u God" in this passage means the Father; no 
one will deny. Here, then, we have an inspired 
Apostle, solemnly addressing the Supreme Being in 
behalf of the Corinthian Church; but his address 
is not to the Father only, but to the three Divine 
persons, namely, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It 
is certain, therefore, that the three addressed by 
Paul, are the one God whom he worshipped. 

But let Arianism interpret this prayer. The 
Bible teaches that " the grace of God bringeth sal- 
vation" — that we are saved "by grace," and that 
this grace is " the gift of God." Paul says, a By 
the grace of God I am what I am," and he express- 
ly declares, that his preaching was " to testify the 
gospel of the grace of God" Now when he comes 
to pray for his Corinthian brethren, he prays for 
" the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." If then, as 
Arians tell us, Christ is a creature, and a distinct 
being from God, the prayer of Paul was not for 
the grace of God, but of a poor finite creature! 
He enjoyed the grace of God himself — the only 
grace that can bring salvation — but, upon the Arian 
hypothesis, when he prays for others he asks only 
the grace of an inferior, dependent " agent /" 

But enough has been said on the subject of this 
chapter. Though we might greatly enlarge the 
above list of texts, we consider those already quoted 
as abundantly sufficient. Our object has been to 
show that while the Scriptures reveal but one God, 
and yet reveal three Divine Persons, of one sub- 
stance, power, and eternity, they reconcile the ap- 
parent contradiction by uniting the Father, Word, 
and Holy Ghost, as the one living and true God. 
This point we now consider established. We have 
shown that the God that sent forth Isaiah, was a 
God consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost— 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 115 

that these three are the one God to whom the Apos- 
tles prayed, and the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost 
are one. With this summary we shall close the 
argument, so far as direct proofs are concerned, 
and proceed in the next chapter to consider objec- 
tions. 



CHAPTER X. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 
ANSWERED. 

It is well known that the usual course pursued 
by modern Arians, in propagating their doctrine, is 
to stand at a respectful distance from the arguments 
of their opponents, and raise objections to the doc- 
trine of the Trinity. To this we should not ob- 
ject, provided they were candid and fair in their 
animadversions ; but the truth is, not one in ten of 
their objections is urged against our real sentiments. 
They first misapprehend or wilfully distort our 
views, and then fall upon their own Agag, and 
hew him to pieces. Having destroyed their man 
of straw, they often rejoice, as if they had driven 
Trinitarianism from the earth. This farce has 
been acted over and over again in different parts of 
the country. 

If our opponents would state our views as they 
are, or suffer our articles to speak for themselves, 
without a forced construction, the doctrine of the 
Trinity would furnish within itself an answer to 
every reasonable objection. But to proceed : — 

I. It is objected that u the doctrine of the Trinity 



116 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

is of human origin? In support of this position, 
Millard asserts, that the doctrine of the Trinity was 
invented at the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, and 
completed at the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 
381. That creeds were formed by these Councils 
as declarations of the general faith, we do not deny ; 
but this fact is decidedly in our favor. These 
primitive Christians took the Bible for their guide, 
and after the proud and ambitious Arius introduced 
his heresy, and began to spread it abroad, Constan- 
tine assembled the ministers of the Church to dis- 
cuss this doctrine, in the presence of the Arian 
party, and to pronounce upon its character. At this 
Council they condemned Arianism, and declared 
the doctrine of the Trinity to be the doctrine of the 
primitive Church, and of the Bible. A person of 
very limited historical knowledge must know this 
to be the fact. We have, then, this proof, that the 
doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of the 
Church of Christ ; and was pronounced such in 
her confessions of faith, at least as far back as with- 
in 225 years of the death of St. John. 

Again : If this doctrine is of human origin, how 
is it that nearly all who have taken the Bible for 
their guide, in all ages of the Church, have been 
Trinitarians? How is it that the great majority 
of learned and pious Christians have found this 
doctrine in the Bible ; while comparatively few 
have rejected it? 

II. It is objected that this doctrine is " an inven- 
tion of Popery? The objection just now considered 
is a sufficient answer to this. If the doctrine was in- 
vented at the Council of Nice, A. D. 3&5, it cannot 
be an invention of Popery ; for the Bishop of Rome 
was not acknowledged Universal Bishop or Pope 
till A. D. 606 ; so that there was no " Popery" till 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 117 

281 years after the Nicene Council. The doctrine 
of the Trinity was known at least 28 1 years before 
Popery was known, even Arians themselves being 
judges. 

This objection, when stated in a Protestant com- 
munity, is an appeal to prejudice rather than to the 
judgment. Suppose Catholics do hold to the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, does that circumstance militate 
against its truth ? Do they not hold to other doc- 
trines that are considered fundamental in Christian- 
ity, even by Arians ? That Popery is a corrupt re- 
ligion, both in theory and practice, we firmly be- 
lieve ; but to reject every doctrine that is held by 
the Catholics, would be to reject the being of a 
God, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection 
of the dead, and future rewards and punishments, 
as well as the doctrine of the Trinity. 

In our view, the fact that Romanists are Trini- 
tarians, is in favor of the truth of the doctrine. 
While they have corrupted many doctrines, and 
have covered up others, during the nine hun- 
dred years of their ascendency, the doctrine of the 
Trinity remains unchanged and uncorrupted, the 
same as in the days of Coristantine. This shows that 
it was too conspicuous and prominent on the pages of 
the Bible to be covered up, and too stern and pointed 
in its evidences to yield to their efforts at corruption. 
Again : we all know that there is a tendency in 
human nature, to go from one extreme to another. 
When Luther and his coadjutors came out from 
the Romish Church, and protested against her doc- 
trines and practices, they rejected every thing that 
they did not find revealed in the word of God. In 
sifting truth from error, they were far more liable 
under the circumstances to reject a truth, because 
they found it with Romish errors, than to adopt and 



118 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

perpetuate mere Papal inventions as the truth of 
God. But with all their prejudices, they transfer 
the doctrine of the Trinity from the Romish to the 
Protestant Church, as a doctrine of the Bible- — a 
doctrine which they dare not reject as a human in- 
vention, much as they despised the errors and cor- 
ruptions of Popery. 

Now, if this doctrine has been in every branch 
of the Church up to 1517, and at that time passed 
the ordeal of the Reformation as a Bible doctrine 
— if at this ordeal, where the Bible was made the 
law, and prejudiced men the judges, this doctrine 
was acquitted as true, and adopted as from heaven ; 
what reasonable man will be terrified by the cry 
of " Popery ?" or be influenced in the least by this 
frivolous objection ? 

III. A third objection is, that " the doctrine of the 
Trinity is unscrijpturaV This is grounded mainly 
upon the fact, that the words " Trinity," " incarna- 
tion," &c, are not found in the Bible. " If these 
phrases were in the Bible," says Kinkade, " I would 
not say a word against them ; but, as neither the 
word Trinity, co-equal, co-essential, &c, is in the Holy 
Scriptures, but are all mere human inventions, no 
person who takes the Bible for a standard, will con- 
sider me erroneous for rejecting them." Again, 
he says, {i It is not common for logicians to dispute 
much about words, when they agree in idea." But 
do not Arians claim to be " logicians V and do they 
not make the whole controversy turn upon "words?" 
We do not say the word " Trinity" is in the Bible, 
but the doctrine is there ; and no logician will dis- 
pute about mere words. According to their own 
showing, then, the above objection is groundless. 

After what has been said on the term Trinity 
&c, Chap. II 3 and tho proofs adduced from the 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 119 

Bible in the preceding pages, we leave the reader 
to judge whether our views are scriptural or not. 
Formally to appeal to the Scriptures here, would 
be to repeat the arguments already adduced. 

IV. Others reject Trinitarianism, because " it is a 
mystery" The strength of this objection is, that the 
doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true, because we 
cannot understand how three persons can be united 
as one God. There is no mystery in the fact of 
this union ; this is clearly revealed. The mystery 
is all in the mode of union. Now, we demur to 
the principle assumed in this objection as Deistical, 
and subversive of all revelation. If we are to re- 
ject every doctrine that we cannot comprehend, we 
shall soon reject most of the leading truths of the 
Bible. Can any tell hoio the dead are to be re-or- 
ganized and brought to life ? — how we are born of 
the Spirit ? — how spirits communicate with each 
other in the intermediate state ? or how God exists, 
and is omniscient and omnipresent ?' God gave the 
Bible to teach things that Ave did not know ; 
and, for us to assume to decide upon the truth of 
things revealed, making reason the test of revela- 
tion, is the height of folly and presumption. We 
are bound to believe all that is revealed in the Bi- 
ble, whether we can comprehend it or not. Such 
is the weakness of the human understanding, that 
we lay it down as a principle, that we should be- 
lieve things that we cannot comprehend or explain, 
whether made known to us by the senses, by con- 
sciousness, or by revelation. Hence we believe 
that the soul and body are united ; that the sun 
shines ; the heart beats ; grass grows, and bodies 
gravitate ; and yet we cannot fully comprehend 01 
explain one of these phenomena. Nor can Arians 
divest their own system of u mystery." Can they 



120 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

tell how God can have a body and soul, and yet be 
" a Spirit ?." How he can have a natural son that 
had no body before the world began, either with or 
without a mother ? How there can be two omni- 
potent Gods, and yet but one God? We have 
known a number of their leading men to admit 
that there were mysteries in their system ; and yet 
they reject the doctrine of the Trinity because it is 
a mystery ! 

That there are three distinct persons in the God- 
head, and that " these three are one" is clearly re- 
vealed ; and we may as well reject the being of a 
God because we cannot comprehend him, as to re- 
ject his peculiar mode of being for the same reason. 

V. Another objection is, that "the doctrine of the 
Trinity is unreasonable" The remarks on the last 
objection are equally applicable here, as both objec- 
tions assume that human reason is to decide what 
is possible or impossible in a revelation from God. 
A doctrine is reasonable or unreasonable with a 
man, according as it agrees or disagrees with doc- 
trines and notions already entertained. All reason- 
ing proceeds by comparison ; and if on comparing 
a new thought with an old one they disagree, the 
new thought is pronounced unreasonable Hence 
when once a person adopts a system, in religion or 
philosophy, he uniformly considers all others un- 
reasonable, that do not accord with his pre-conceived 
views. For instance, the Copernican theory of the 
revolution of the earth was considered very unreason- 
able by those who held that the earth stood still ; and 
the absurd idea that the heavenly bodies made the 
whole circuit of the heavens every twenty-four hours 
was pronounced reasonable, because it agreed with 
the first error, namely that the earth stood still. 

So with Arians in respect to the doctrine of the 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 121 

Trinity. They compare it with their theory, and 
then pronounce it " unreasonable" because it does 
not agree with Arianism. Deacon Homespun 
must be right, though Copernicus and all the world 
be wrong. 

But by what rule is this doctrine branded as un- 
reasonable ? Can it be unreasonable unless it con- 
tradicts some known and established truth ? By no 
means. We ask then, wherein is it repulsive to 
reason ? Can such hostility be discovered by com- 
mon minds ? If so, how r is it that the greatest logi- 
cians that have ever lived have been Trinitarians ? 
and that nine-tenths of all the great men that have 
ever shone in the Church, have believed the 
same doctrine ? Are there no reasonable men on 
earth but Arians ? Alas, for Methodists, Baptists, 
Presbyterians, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Luthe- 
rans and Episcopalians ! If our opponents are cor- 
rect, we are well nigh destitute of reason. 

Aside from the arrogance of such indiscriminate 
censure, it always creates suspicion with some, to 
hear men so loud in eulogizing reason, as the test 
of Bible truth. It reminds us of a certain book 
called " The Age of Reason ;" and of a nation we 
once read of, that reasoned the Sabbath into every 
tenth day ; the Bible into the fire ; and the soul of 
man out of existence. 

VI. A sixth objection to our doctrine is, that " it 
represents Christ as two persons ; and thus makes out 
as many as four persons in the Godhead" It is 
urged that if Christ had a human body and soul, 
they must make one person, and the pre-existent na- 
ture is another person. " Add to these," say they, 
"the Father and the Holy Spirit, and we have 
four persons." The fallacy of this objection lies in 
the ambiguous use of the term person. It ordina- 
11 



122 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



rily comprehends in its meaning both body and soul, 
but not always. It sometimes includes only the 
body, at other times only a spirit ; as when it is said, 
God is a person ; but when applied to Christ as a 
complex being, it comprehends his entire substance, 
sou], body, and Divinity. Hence we say, " the 
Godhead and manhood were joined together in one 
person." We might as well say that there were 
two Christs, or two sons of God, as that there were 
two persons. 

As the soul and body may each be called a per- 
son when abstractly considered, and yet when 
united are but one person ; so the humanity and 
Divinity of Christ, which might each be called per- 
sons when separately considered, are but one per- 
son when united in Christ. 

VII. It is objected that " if Trinitarianism be true, 
we have only a human sacrifice.'''' 

This objection comes with an ill grace from those 
who deny the sacrificial death of Christ altogether ; 
but still we will give it a candid consideration. 
The curse of a broken law hung over man ; and 
without real humanity there could have been no 
atonement. This we have shown in our remarks 
on the humanity of Christ. But though humanity 
was essential, as well as Divinity, sinful humanity 
could not become an ofTering for the sins of others ; 
as it would need an atonement for itself. All the 
natural descendants of Adam were " in his own 
image," that is, depraved and sinful ; but the hu- 
manity of Christ, being begotten by the Holy 
Ghost, had not the depravity of Adam's natural 
descendants, but was perfectly holy. In reference 
to this miraculous provision for the redemption of 
the world, the eternal Word says to the Father, 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 123 

? sacrifices and offerings thou wouldst not. but a body 
hast thou prepared me. " 

As Christ's humanity was begotten by the Holy 
Ghost, and was perfectly holy, he needed no atone- 
ment for himself, and was an appropriate offering 
for the sins of the world. He never sinned or re- 
pented ; was never converted ; and will never be 
judged. " Such an High Priest became us, who is 
holy, harmless, undefined, separate from sinners, 
and made higher than the heavens; who needeth 
not daily as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, 
first for his own sins, and then for the people's : for 
this he did once, when he offered up himself. For 
the law maketh men high priests which have in- 
firmity ; but the word of the oath, which was since 
the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for- 
evermore." Heb. vii. 26. 

Christ's sacrifice, then, was more than human, if 
by human we mean a mere fellow being. He was 
begotten of God ; was perfectly holy ; and was in 
union with the Godhead, and sustained by it, in the 
redemption of the world. To attempt, therefore, to 
disparage the atonement, by connecting it with the 
sin and corruption of fallen humanity, is a mere 
artifice: — an appeal to our prejudices, rather than 
to the Scriptures. 

" The man Christ Jesus" was a sacrifice which 
God could accept — an atonement by the merit of 
which " He could be just, and yet the justifier of 
him that believeth in Jesus." Now allowing that 
the offering actually made for sin, was nothing 
more than the " body prepared" — the spotless hu- 
manity of Christ, what then ? Has Arianism a 
more valid atonement % Do they not assert that 
Christ is a mere creature ? and has not one creature 
as much merit before God as another ? All the 



124 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 

merit that could be secured, growing out of the 
quality of the offering, must arise from a connection 
with absolute Divinity — a connection which we 
acknowledge, but which Arians deny. 

VIII. Another common objection is, that " accord- 
ing to Trinitarianism, the Son of God never died." 

But Christ was the Son of God in a twofold 
sense. His Divine Nature was the " Son," as dis- 
tinguished from the Father and the Holy Ghost ; 
and his humanity was the Son of Getd, because God 
the Holy Ghost was his only father. In some 
passages the title " Son of God" signifies one na- 
ture ; in some the other ; and in others both united. 
" Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for- 
ever and ever," — " all men should honor the Son, 
even as they honor the Father." Here the term 
Son, signifies the Divine Nature. In the first chap- 
ter of Luke it is applied to the humanity only. 
" The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; there- 
fore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall 
be called the Son of God." Here that which was 
born of Mary, namely the human nature, was to be 
called the Son of God, because the Holy Ghost was 
its Father, by whom it was begotten. Other pas- 
sages apply the term to both natures. The Son in 
Isaiah ix. 6, is both a " child born" and " the mighty 
God ;" and in most places in the New Testament, 
as Mr. Watson well remarks, it is applied to Christ 
without any nice distinction, to include both natures, 
and signify the one person, Jesus Christ. Now as 
Christ is the Son of God in both natures, considered 
as distinct, and is consequently the Son of God in 
his complex character, the death of the human na- 
ture is entirely sufficient to justify the language of 
the Scriptures. If the " Son of God" meant only 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 125 

the Divine Nature, we should deny that it died. 
We do not believe that the pre-existent Spirit — the 
Divinity — ever suffered or died ; nor did we suppose 
that even a super-angelic being could die, till we 
read it from the pen of an Arian preacher. Mr. 
Millard says the whole Christ actually died, Divinity 
and all ; but as he was only a subordinate God, 
according to Mr. M.'s theory, it seems he was not 
exempt from death. 

But Trinitarians do not hold to the suffering or 
death of Divinity ; and yet they firmly believe that 
• ; that holy thing" which was born of Mary, and 
was called by Gabriel " the Son of God," actually 
died on the cross as an atonement for sin. 

IX. It is affirmed that according to our doctrine 
'"God died.' 1 This objection and the preceding, 
cross at right angles, and neutralize each other. 
If, according to our views, the pre-existent nature 
did not die, how does it appear that God died ? But 
we will give the objection full scope, and answer it 
as if it stood alone. It is said if Christ was God, 
and Christ died, God must have died. 

To those who have given little attention to the 
subject, this argument appears quite plausible. But 
let us examine it. In order to make the objec- 
tion valid we must assert that Christ has but one 
nature ; that in this nature he is God ; and that he 
actually died. But is this Trinitarianism ? We 
assert that Christ has two natures, humanity and 
Divinity ; and that the human nature only died on 
the cross. How then does our doctrine imply that 
God died ? The humanity could die and did die, 
without the suffering or death of Divinity. 

Natural death is the separation of soul and body ; 
and though the soul of man never dies, yet we 
speak of a deceased person as dead. So in refe- 
11* 



126 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

rence to Christ. His pre-existent nature and his 
human soul were both immortal, and consequently 
could not die ; but his body being mortal " became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." 
Now we might as well say that the soul dies be- 
cause the body does, as that Christ's Divinity died 
because his body did. The same logic would say, 
" men are souls and bodies united. Men die, there- 
fore souls and bodies die. 1 '' 

X. Again, it is asserted that on the Trinitarian 
scheme " there was no humiliation 1 '' in the advent of 
Christ. A strange objection indeed, and easily an- 
swered. It rests on the assumption that it indicates 
greater condescension and humility for a creature to 
become incarnate, than for God to be " manifest 
in the flesh." This assumption is untrue, as all 
must see. The more elevated the being, the 
greater the humiliation in stooping to our nature, 
and to a visible residence in this lower world. So 
far, then, as the infinite God exceeds a mere crea- 
ture ; so far does the Trinitarian scheme exceed 
that of the Arians, in the humiliation it ascribes to 
Christ. For a creature to be elevated to create, sus- 
tain, and govern all things — to forgive sins, receive 
the homage of men and angels, and judge all men 
at the last day — is an inconceivable exaltation ; but 
for the eternal Word, the God and Creator of all, 
to assume our nature and " dwell among us," is a 
specimen of humiliation unparalleled in the annals 
of time or of eternity. And yet it is objected that 
there is " no humiliation ! !" 

XL It is urged, that u if Trinitarianism be true, 
we have no Mediator. 1 '' In Christ were united the 
sacerdotal^ prophetic, and regal offices; into all of 
which the candidate was inducted by anointing. 
Hence Jesus is called Christ, which signifies the 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 127 

anointed. In his priestly office he is our Mediator, 
and stands like the ancient high priests between 
the Father and sinful men. His pre-existent nature 
is also our Mediator by office. Each of the three 
persons in the Godhead has his peculiar office in 
the work of redemption. The Father vindicated 
the law, and insists on the claims of justice. The 
Son becomes incarnate, to mediate between the 
Father and us, to become our Advocate, and to re- 
deem us from under the curse of a broken law. 
The peculiar office of the Holy Ghost is to inspire 
the Scriptures ; to convince the world of sin ; to in- 
duce repentance ; to renew the heart in conversion, 
and to sanctify us wholly to God. It does in- 
deed seem that the whole scheme and economy of 
man's redemption was laid, in order to bring man- 
kind gradually into an acquaintance with the three 
Divine Persons, one God blessed forever. Now, if 
the doctrine of the Trinity be true, Christ is our 
Mediator in both natures. The pre-existent Word 
being u manifest in the flesh," the entire person, in- 
cluding both humanity and Divinity, constitutes an 
appropriate Mediator between the Father and us. 
We may approach God through such a Mediator, 
and live ; for by him the rays of Divine justice are 
so modified, that we can draw nigh unto God, and 
not be consumed. He is our Brother, and we need 
not dread to approach him ; he is our God, and we 
need not fear to love, trust, obey, and worship him 
with all our hearts, and forever more. 

So far is Trinitarianism from destroying the me- 
diatorial office, that it is the only doctrine that fully 
recognizes that office. It is the glory of our sys- 
tem that " there is one God and one Mediator be- 
tween God and man, the man Christ Jesus." 

XII. Arians tell us, that our doctrine " represents 



128 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, 

Jesus Christ a$ sending himself; anointing himself™ 
&c. This, also, is a mistake. If there are no dis- 
tinctions of persons in the Godhead, as Arians af- 
firm ; that is, if God exists in one person only ; then 
to assert the Deity of Christ, is to represent the 
same person as sending and being sent ; but if God 
exists in three persons, then the Father could send 
the Son, and the Son could pray to the Father. 
The Word, or second person in the Trinity, was 
sent in the office of Mediator, to take our nature, 
and become a sacrifice for sin ; and, in order to re- 
deem man, and conquer death in his own domin- 
ions, he " humbled himself^ and assumed " the 
place of a servant." Though he was rich, for our 
sakes he became poor, yielding to an official subor- 
dination, and dependence. Hence, though he was 
essentially one with the Father, he was officially sub- 
ject to, and dependent upon the Father, in the 
great work of human redemption. As the incar- 
nate Son, self-exiled from the glory of heaven, and 
nearing the period of his exaltation and glorifica- 
tion, he prays, " Now, O Father, glorify thou me 
with the glory which I had with thee before the 
world began." 

If then, the doctrine of the Trinity he true ? 
Christ did not pray to himself, or send himself; for 
whether it were the incarnate Son that prayed, or 
the human soul, or both, as united in one complex 
person, the prayer was offered to the Father, a dis- 
tinct person in the Godhead ; and the Father sends 
the Son, and anoints " Jesus of Nazareth with the 
Holy Ghost." 

XIII. The last objection we shall notice, and the 
only remaining one that we know of, is, that, " ac- 
cording to Trinitarianismj the sufferings of Christ were 
comparatively nothing" It is alledged, that as his 






OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 129 

Divinity infinitely transcends his humanity, and 
yet could not suffer , but was infinitely happy while 
Christ hung on the cross, his sufferings were the 
sufferings of mere humanity; a part of Christ 
which, compared with the whole of him, was as a 
drop to the ocean. This objection assumes first, 
that the validity of the atonement depends upon the 
amou?it and intensity of Christ's sufferings ; and, se- 
condly, that humanity could not suffer as much even 
while connected with Divinity, as an exalted creature 
could without such connection. Neither of these 
positions is tenable. 

1. Christ never suffered, in amount, what the law 
demanded as the punishment of sin ; for this would 
have consigned him to indescribable torments to all 
eternity ; and, on the principle that " he died for 
all," all must have been saved ; as the loss of one 
soul would have involved double punishment, and 
stamped the Divine administration with injustice. 
There would then have been no such thing as par- 
don, as the punishment would only have been 
changed from the guilty to the innocent. 

The penalty due to sin is endless suffering. 
Christ did not suffer this, therefore he did not suffer 
in amount the desert of sin : and the atonement does 
not depend upon the amount of suffering. 

The sacrifice of Christ was such as God could 
accept, consistently with the claims of Divine jus- 
tice ; and with that satisfaction " he could be just, 
and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." 
Hence it did not make the salvation of all a neces- 
sary result of the atonement, but merely a possible 
consequence. 

Though the Scriptures lay some stress upon the 
sufferings of Christ, they are far from making these 
alone the ground of our justification. They attri- 



130 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

bute our redemption to the blood of Christ as well 
as to his sufferings. " We are made nigh by % the 
blood of Christ" — "him that hath loved us, and 
hath washed us from our sins in his own blood" — 
u set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
blood"—" we have redemption through his bloody 
and remission of sins" — peace was made " through 
the blood of his cross" — we are redeemed not with 
corruptible things, but " with the precious blood of 
Christ." 

It was not the sufferings of the sacrifice that 
made an atonement under the Levitical law, but 
the blood ; and so with Christ ; " the Lamb of God 
that taketh away the sin of the world." The saved 
in heaven do not attribute their salvation to Christ's 
sufferings, but addressing the " Lamb," they say, 
" Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by 
thy blood" 

It is an unscriptural objection, therefore, that 
makes the validity of the atonement to depend upon 
the amount and intensity of Christ's sufferings. 

2. It is equally preposterous and fallacious to at- 
tempt to measure the sufferings of Christ, as they 
are measured and limited by this objection. We 
have no evidence that any being in the universe is 
capable of more intense suffering than the human 
spirit. The sufferings of lost souls in hell are 
greater, judging from the language used in descri- 
bing them, than those of the fallen angels. Now ? 
by what authority is it assumed that humanity is 
capable of but limited suffering? Have human 
spirits less sensibility or immortality than angels ? 
It is probable that we have but a mere specimen of 
our capability to suffer, in the most extreme suffer- 
ings of the present life. 

But it may be said that if humanity only suffered. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 131 

a small amount of suffering would produce death, 
with which all suffering must end. This also is 
fallacious. Life does not remain or become extinct, 
according as our sufferings rise to, or keep below, a 
certain point. Some who live, suffer far more than 
others who die ; and many die who suffer com- 
paratively little. 

Hitherto we have defended the orthodox view of 
atonement, as if there was nothing peculiar in the 
sufferings and death of Christ. It has been shown 
that if he were only a man like one of us, it would 
be impossible to invalidate the atonement for want 
of suffering. But this was not the case. He was 
not only man, and perfectly holy, but " in him 
dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 
There was a union of soul, and body, and Divinity ; 
and had it not been for the support of the Divine 
Nature, no doubt Christ would have given up the 
ghost long before he came to the Cross. What 
merely human being ever suffered so as to sweat 
" great drops of blood," and yet lived ? Christ had 
not yet felt the nails or the soldier's spear ; and yet, 
such was his " agony," even before he was betrayed, 
that the blood ' gushed from every pore, " falling 
down to the ground !" In the midst of this intense 
suffering, " there appeared an angel unto him from 
heaven, strengthening him," as if for the time being 
to render the sufferer immortal, and strengthen the 
ties of dissolving nature, as soul and body were 
parting. And yet with all these circumstances, 
rendering him capable of untold suffering ; and 
with all the evidences of distress that attended him 
in the garden and on the cross; it is objected that, 
according to our system, Christ was no sufferer ! 

But look for a moment at the opposite theory. 
Arians tell us that Christ is a creature, and has but 



132 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

one nature ; and that he had no union with a pro- 
per Divinity. Now we ask, can one intelligent 
creature suffer more than another may? If Christ 
is " the first creature that was born into existence,' 7 
as Mr. Kinkade says, is there any proof that he 
could suffer any more than a man 1 And could not 
a creature united with and sustained by the Divine 
Nature, suffer far more than one who had not that 
union and peculiar support % It is perfectly cer- 
tain, that if either system diminishes the sufferings 
of Christ, it is that of the Arians. 

We have now considered all the objections that 
we ever knew urged against the doctrine of the 
Trinity ; and the reader must judge whether the 
answers given are candid and scriptural or not. 
But we have not done yet. Our opponents claim 
the right to state objections, and demand answers to 
all their queries. Of course, then, they will allow 
us carefully to examine their system, before we 
abandon ours ; and if, in the examination, we dis- 
cover untempered mortar, hay, wood, and stubble, 
they will not consider it uncourteous in us, if we 
state our fears and our reasons for them. We shall 
proceed, then, in the next Chapter, to state some ob- 
jections to the Arian theory. 



CHAPTER XI. 

OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM STATED AND URGED. 

It is but too common a practice, in stating objec- 
tions, to caricature and distort the system opposed, 
in order to render it odious, and to create the greater 
number of objectionable features. This is always 



STATED AND URGED. 133 

unfair, and, in respect to the present controversy, 
wholly unnecessary. Arianism is quite bad 
enough as it really is, without any misrepresenta- 
tions ; and our main difficulty will be, not in find- 
ing reasonable objections, but in making a judicious 
selection from the vast number that might be urged. 
We have, therefore, no possible motive for produ- 
cing an overwrought picture of modern Arianism. 
It has often been the case, that when it has been 
fairly unveiled to the world, its avowed friends 
have disowned it, and pronounced the disclosure a 
misrepresentation. In anticipation of this we have 
made a free use of names and quotations in the 
preceding pages, that we might do no injustice to 
the Arian theory. 

After having read their books and periodicals for 
a number of years ; after holding a number of pub- 
lic discussions both oral and written, and conversing 
with private individuals of the Arian school ; we do 
positively know that the sentiments we oppose are, 
in truth and verity, the sentiments of the great 
body of modern Arians ; and we here challenge 
any man to point out a single doctrine which we 
have charged upon them, which is not clearly ex- 
pressed or necessarily implied in their writings. 
With these remarks we proceed to the work be- 
fore us. 

1. Arianism is of suspicious origin. Mr. Watson 
says — " The source of this ancient error appears to 
have been a philosophical one. Both in the Orien- 
tal and Greek schools, it was a favorite notion, that 
whatsoever was joined to matter ,was necessarly con- 
taminated by it, and that the highest perfection of 
this life was abstraction from material things, and, 
in another, a total and final separation from the 
body." This, he says, was " one of the chief 
12 



134 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

grounds of the rejection of the proper humanity of 
Christ among the different branches of the Gnostics^ 
who, indeed, erred as to both natures." If this 
opinion be correct, (and we have every reason to 
think it is,) Arianism had its origin in the errors of 
the Pagan religion, and the bewildering specula- 
tions of a false philosophy. 

II. Arianism approaches nearer to a system of neg- 
ativism, or unbelief, than to a system of faith. In 
their writings and conversation, Arians are ever 
ready to tell you what they do not believe, but they 
are never willing to tell you, plainly and fully, 
what they do believe. They are free to declare that 
they do not believe in a Trinity — in Christ's Deity, 
or humanity — in the personality of the Holy Ghost 
— -in depravity — in creeds, or in a vicarious atone- 
ment ; but when asked to tell what kind of a being 
Christ is ; what the Holy Ghost is ; or what they 
mean by tt atonement," the popular answer is, " I 
believe the Bible !" We have never yet met with 
an Arian who could tell, clearly and fully, what he 
did believe. 

III. Arianism shuns investigation ; or, in other 
words, " hateth the light." Our Lord says, John 
iii. 20, 21, "For every one that doeth evil hateth 
the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds 
should be reproved. But he that doeth truth, com- 
eth to the light, that his deeds may be made mani- 
fest, that they are wrought in God " Now, where 
does modern Arianism stand, according to this rule ? 
While Trinitarians come out fairly, and state their 
belief to the world, and make a public confession of 
their faith, in printed articles ; modern Arians re- 
fuse to give us as much as a syllable of their creed, 
on a single point of doctrine. Now, we ask, Which 
of these systems " cometh to the light ?" Which is 



STATED AND URGED. 135 

it that dreads the result of close investigation, and 
shows to the world that it would suffer by scrutiny ? 
Again, while Arians circulate Kinkade's " Bible 
Doctrine," and Millard's " True Messiah," as un- 
answerable productions containing their views, they 
refuse to be held responsible for a single paragraph 
or sentiment therein contained. Are we not, there- 
fore, justified in the assertion, that Arianism " hateth 
the light ;" and hence according to our Saviour's 
rule, " doeth evil," and is not the " truth 2" 

IV. Arianism recognizes at least three distinct 
Gods, who sustain to each other the relation of father \ 
mother, and son. It asserts that Christ is God ; that 
he is a distinct being from Jehovah ; and that he is a 
natural son "born into existence." At the same 
time it admits that Christ existed before the world 
began. Now if Christ is God, and is a distinct be- 
ing from the Father, there must be two Gods ; and 
if one of these Gods was "born into existence" before 
the world began, as Kinkade asserts, he must have 
had a divine mother also. Here then we have three 
Gods at least, a father, mother, and son 1 1 How much 
like the Pagan theory of Jove, Juno, and their family. 

For more on this point see the Chapter on " The 
Unity of God." 

V. Arianism acknowledges two distinct Saviours 
for our world. God says by Isaiah, " I am the 
Lord thy God, the holy one of Israel, thy Saviour." 
L '\, even I, am the Lord, and beside me there is no 
Saviour" — " a just God and a Saviour ; there is 
none beside me." See Isa. xliii. 3, 11 • and xlv. 
15, 21. Now it is certain that Jesus Christ is the 
Saviour of the world — of " all men ;" but, rather 
than admit that he is the God and Saviour of the Old 
Testament, the one only Saviour; Arians tell us, that 
God was the Saviour under the old dispensation. 



136 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

and Christ, a creature, the Saviour of the new. 
Thus we have two Saviours and two Redeemers. 

VI. Arianism endorses some of the worst fea- 
tures of Popery. 

The first of these is idolatry. Romanists assume 
that it is right to pay religious worship to a creature ; 
and adopt a definition of idolatry, which favors 
their creature worship. Modern Arianism endorses 
this theory. It adopts the same false definition of 
idolatry ; insists that it is right to make a creature 
an object of religious worship ; and actually wor- 
ships two objects, one of which they say is a crea- 
ture. 

Secondly, — It endorses the doctrine of pardon by 
delegation. Papists tell us that God can delegate 
the power to forgive sins to his creatures ; and that 
this power is actually entrusted to the Catholic 
Church. The great principle here involved is 
sanctioned by Arianism. It teaches that God au- 
thorized a creature, as his agent, to forgive sins ; and 
that when Christ forgave sins, he did it merely as 
God's delegate. This is, substantially, the Romish 
doctrine of pardon by delegation. 

Thirdly, — Arianism has much of the intolerance 
and exclusiveness of the Church of Rome. They 
profess to be very catholic in their feelings, and 
ready to fellowship almost any body, and they also 
claim to let their members believe about as they 
please. But there is one " Shibboleth 71 which they 
must all pronounce ; and this done, other matters 
are of little consequence. They must all be op- 
posed to confessions of faith, and hostile to the 
doctrine of the Trinity. However sound a man 
may be in morals and in faith, he can never live in 
the Arian fraternity and be a Trinitarian. Take 
the following in proof of our assertion. 



STATED AND URGED. 137 

A number of Arian preachers met in a certain 
neighborhood to hold a three-days meeting. In 
the early part of their exercises they took occasion 
to decry " creeds," &c, as usual, and to assert that 
in their church every man could believe and preach 
what he thought to be the truth, without incurring 
the displeasure of " Conferences, Bishops, or Sy- 
nods." A Trinitarian preacher who heard the 
statement, concluded to try an experiment, and give 
these liberalists a chance to show their great charity. 
Accordingly he made known his desire to unite 
with them, as a member of their church, on condi- 
tion that he should remain, as he then was, a minis- 
ter. The proposal was gladly accepted, and he 
was formally admitted. Of course their new min- 
ister must take part in the exercises of the occasion, 
and as a mark of respect to him, and of encourage- 
ment to others that might follow his example, it 
was appointed for him to preach on Sabbath morn- 
ing. The time arrived, and the preacher arose 
and took his text ; — " There are three thai bear record 
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, 
and these three are one." Every eye was fixed 
on the speaker. It was now supposed that he was 
about to renounce the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
in this public manner to give it its death-blow. But 
what was the consternation, when instead of pronoun- 
cing the text a forgery, he proceeded to vindicate it 
as the genuine portion of the word of God, and to 
prove and defend its true doctrine before the people. 
Some frowned ; some interrupted the speaker and 
attempted to stop him ; and others tied. But he held 
on his way, and made thorough work as he went. 
Having concluded, he closed his meeting, in due 
form and according to custom. No sooner had he 
pronounced the benediction, than he was surrounded 
22* 



138 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

by preachers and people, who seemed much displeased 
and almost ready to tear him in pieces. He calmly 
inquired the reason of their anger, when with one 
voice they commenced persecuting him for his be- 
lief. " But stop, gentlemen," said he ; u did you 
not publish in this congregation on Friday last 5 
that in your church every man could take the 
Bible for his guide, and believe and teach what he 
thought to be truth ? If this is a specimen of your 
liberality and charity, I think it is best for me to 
withdraw from your church ;' J and so saying, he 
made his way through the crowd and retired. . So 
much for Arian liberty and tolerance. 

Take another circumstance, The very name 
assumed by modern Arians, might teach us what 
to expect of them by way of charity. They style 
themselves "The Christian Church f and their 
Press, at which they publish only now and then a 
book, is called " the Book Concern of the Christian 
Church." They arrogate to themselves the exclu- 
sive title of Christian, and denounce all other de- 
nominations as anti-Christian. They ring the 
changes on the words ci Trinity" " Creeds" " Chris- 
tian" and "Sectarian] 1 as if all religion was in a 
certain name, and in opposing all other names. 
But why this great ado about a name 1 Was not 
the term " Christian" a name given to the follow- 
ers of Christ in derision, by their enemies at Anti- 
och ? But, it is replied, " it is a scriptural name ; 
and Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian, are anti- 
scriptural." But what is meant by " scriptural % n 
If it is intended to assert that the disciples of Christ 
were named Christians by the Apostles, or by Di- 
vine authority, we deny it, and call for the proof. 
It is said the disciples w r ere called Christians first at 
Antioch. Bnt who called them so? Did they 



STATED AND URGED. 139 

call themselves so ? or did their enemies call them 
so. m order to reproach them as followers of Christ ? 
By what authority, we ask, were they called Chris- 
tians ? Was it not precisely on the same principle 
that some are called Lutherans, Arminians, Wes- 
leyans, &c. ? 

The name given to the disciples, as a name of 
reproach, soon spread through the Roman empire, 
and the disciples became generally known by that 
name. Hence Agrippa said unto Paul, " Almost 
thou persuadest me to be a Christian" But the 
Apostle does not acknowledge the title as of Divine 
origin, but simply say^, " I would to God, that thou 
wert" [not a Christian] but "such as lam;" as if 
discarding the name by which the disciples were 
called by the Roman Governor. 

Again — Peter says, " if any man suffer as a Chris- 
tian^ let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify 
God on this behalf." Here it is evident that the 
term " Christian" was a name of reproach, other- 
wise it would have been written, " If any Chris- 
tian suffer," &c, instead of, " If any man suffer as a 
Christian" as if Christian was a name of obloquy 
and reproach. In time, however, believers in Christ 
acknowledged this name, not as a Divine appella- 
tion, but as a convenient and distinguishing cogno- 
men. In this sense, and in this only, is it a a scrip- 
tural name." But are there not a number of other 
names quite as " scriptural" as Christian, if not 
more so ? Are not believers called the " children 
of Abraham" — " the sons of God," and " disciples," 
by Divine authority 1 Were not " Christians" called 
a Galileans" and " Nazarines . ? " Tacitus, an ancient 
historian, speaks of a low or vulgar people, called 
the followers of Christ or Christians ; and Josephus 
says, that " the tribe of Christians, so named from 



140 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM. 

Christ, are not extinct at this day." See Ant. Book 
xviii., Chap, iii., Par. 3. From both these writers, 
it is clear that the name was given by man, and not 
by God. 

The only circumstance that renders the term Chris- 
tian more proper than either of the above, as the 
name of a believer in Christ, is that it embodies the 
name of the Great Head of the Church ; and has been 
used in all ages by common consent to designate 
his followers. The first of these circumstances 
doubtless led primitive Christians to acknowledge 
the title. Venerable as is the name, and sacred as 
are its associations, it is, however, far from being 
hallowed by the authority of Heaven. Where then 
is its peculiar sanctity ? If our enemies brand us 
with opprobrious epithets, what difference whether 
we are cailed Christians or Lutherans, Quakers or 
Methodists ? or whether we are so called first at An- 
tioch or Oxford ? But " the Christian Church" deny 
that they use the term Christian in a sectarian sense ; 
hence, to distinguish them from other professions, 
they have been known in most parts of the country 
by the name of " Christians;''' 1 pronouncing the first 
% long. 

Of the modesty and charity of their course, in 
calling themselves Christians, as a denominational 
title, I will not stop to speak. It is certain, however, 
that if soundness of faith and holiness of life are the 
marks of a Christian, they are not the only Chris- 
tians in the world. Saying nothing of their prac- 
tice, it is certain that their faith is the very opposite 
of the Christians of Antioch. The following re- 
marks, chiefly from a work written by a Presby- 
terian minister of Philadelphia, will illustrate this 
point : — 

1. Real Christians worship that God who : s a 



STATED AND URGED. 141 

Spirit The Pagans worship a material Jupiter, 
the father of gods and men. With which does 
Arianism agree ? Does it not unblushingly declaro 
that the sole, supreme, Almighty Father, is a mate- 
rial God ? 

2. Real Christians have always believed God to 
be without body or parts. Kinkade says, u This is 
equal to Atheism." Which creed did the Pagans 
hold ? Their Jupiter, like the Arian idol, had a 
body and parts. 

3. Real Christians have always believed that the 
true God is without shape or figure. The Pagan 
Jupiter had a shape. Which is the Arian creed ? 
Mr. K. says, " if God has no shape, he has no real 
existence." 

4. The Pagan Jupiter was in the shape of a 
man. Hence the priests of Jupiter mistook Paul 
and Barnabas for their gods, Acts xiv. 1 1 , and were 
about to sacrifice to them. They said, " The gods 
are come down to us in the likeness of men ; and 
they called Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul MercnriusP 
What is the Arian doctrine on this point % Mr. 
K. and his followers say, "God is in the shape 
of a man^ Mr. K. says, God has " nearly all 
the members of the human body. Ears, hands, 
and eyes, are parts of an intelligent ruler, and if 
God has none of these, he cannot hear, handle, nor 
see us !" 

5. The Christian Church has always believed 
that the Divine Father had a Divine Son, co-essen- 
tial, co-eternal, and co-equal with the Father, with- 
out the intervention of any mother, human or 
divine. But when Jupiter is the father of a Pagan 
God, they assign him a Divine mother ; and, when 
he is the father of a demigod, it is by a human 
mother. So Mr. K. says, " Christ could not have 



142 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM. 

been begotten, in the proper sense of the word, 
unless he had a mother as well as a father." 

These are some of the enormities of a society 
calling themselves " the Christian Church P 

Before we dismiss this objection, allow us to 
introduce an item of personal experience. The 
writer has had a fair opportunity, during a few 
years past, to visit different churches, and to become 
acquainted with ministers and laymen of various 
denominations. He has often talked with Baptists, 
Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Epis- 
copalians, Dutch Reformed, and Quakers ; respect- 
ing their peculiarities in doctrine and government ; 
and he can truly say, that of all people he ever met 
with, none ever betrayed so lamentable a want of 
charity as these self-styled Christians. We regret 
to say this, but truth constrains us. They assume 
a soft, sweet, innocent name — they talk about 
"union 1 ' for the sake of advantage, but the design 
of all is to break up other churches, in order to 
build up their own party. If, in the exercise of 
your own judgment and prerogative, you venture to 
think and act for yourself, and, in so doing, cross 
their track, their severest censure is too good for 
you. 

We do think therefore that if gross idolatry, par- 
don by delegation, and sectarian exclusiveness and 
intolerance, are among the " marks of the Beast," 
Arianism has in its composition some of the foulest 
ingredients of Popery ; and, if we may know a 
Christian by his agreeing in doctrine with those of 
Antioch, Arians should be among the last to assume 
that innocent name as a sectarian title. 

VII. Arianism is pointedly reprobated in the 
Holy Scriptures. It is there written, " Every 
spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come 



STATED AND URGED. 143 

in the flesh, is not of God. And this is that spirit 
of anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it should 
come." " For many deceivers are entered into the 
world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in 
the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ." 
But Arianism denies that Jesus Christ is come in 
the flesh. It denies that Christ has two natures, or 
that the pre-existent Word became incarnate, which 
is precisely the doctrine of the anti-christs in the 
above texts. 

VIII. Modern Arianism destroys the person- 
ality of God, angels, and disembodied spirits. In 
all their reasoning on the persons of Deity, they 
use the term person to signify a body. Hence by 
the person of God they mean his body, as they can- 
not admit his personality without giving him a body. 
Now if it be true that there can be no personality 
without a body, then angels, and human souls, 
during the intermediate state, have no personality ; 
as the former never had any body, and the bodies 
of the latter are dissolved, to slumber in the dust of 
the earth till the morning of the resurrection. 

Again — If a corporeal body is essential to per- 
sonality, God cannot be a " person," for God is a 
Spirit ;" and " a spirit hath not flesh and bones," or 
a corporeal body. 

IX. Arianism destroys all ground of trust in 
the Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ be a mere 
creature, mutable and finite, who will dare to trust 
their souls to his keeping, for time and eternity ? 
Who would risk all for both worlds on the pardon 
of a creature ? Kinkade says, Christ " is a created 
being, that can of his own self do nothing, and change- 
able, and capable of repentance" If he is u change- 
able," he may change his mind concerning us ; his 
love may change into hatred, and his mercy into 



144 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

revenge. The pardon lie has given us may be 
pronounced insufficient, and he may abandon us 
after all to sink into hell. 

But worse still, Mr. K. says he is " capable of re- 
pentance." If he is capable of repentance, he must 
be capable of sinning ; and if capable of sinning, he 
may himself become the victim of retributive jus- 
tice, and reap the wages of sin, which is eternal 
death. It must be possible, therefore, not only that 
Christ may prove recreant to his trust and abandon 
those that confide in him, but he may even sin 
against God himself, and like the fallen angels be 
damned forever ! This is a most shocking conclu- 
sion we grant ; but it legitimately grows out of the 
Arian doctrine, and justice to the subject and to the 
cause of God requires that it be set before the world 
in its true light. 

But is this the Rock on which the Church rests ? 
Is this the foundation of our hope of eternal life ? 
Is this the best assurance of salvation this side hea- 
ven ? Is our allotment to turn for heaven or hell, 
as a changeable creature may determine ? Is it so, 
that after all our anxiety and solicitude — after all our 
confidence and joy in anticipation of heaven — after 
long cherishing u the hope of glory," our Saviour 
may become a sinner, and together with all his 
followers be consigned to hopeless perdition ? Alas 
for us, if this is our only trust ! 

But we are not thus abandoned to despair. While 
the soul stands for a moment horror-stricken and 
appalled at the wreck of all her hopes, the next 
moment she turns with holy gratitude from the 
desolation and ruin of modern Arianism, and 
anchors herself still deeper in the truth of God, and 
the merits of a Divine Redeemer. Again the fires 
of devotion are rekindled. Again the torch of im- 



STATED AND URGED. 145 

mortal hope shines on her otherwise dark passage 
through this world, and while all her powers find 
free exercise and expansion, in contemplating the 
incarnate Word, her fears are hushed in silence — 
the anxiety of the disturbed spirit subsides into the 
tranquillity of heaven, and again she sings, " Why- 
art thou cast down, O my soul ? and why art thou 
disquieted within me ? Hope thou in God, for I shall 
yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance 
and my God." Blessed be God for a holy, immu- 
table, eternal and almighty Saviour ; and blessed be 
His name forever and ever ! 

X. Arianism denies the doctrine of atonement 
by Jesus Christ. Our limits forbid the full dis- 
cussion of this point, but we can say enough in a 
few paragraphs to show the force of the objection. 

By the doctrine of atonement we mean the doc- 
trine that Christ died for us as a sin offering or sat- 
isfaction to divine justice, that God might be just, 
and yet justify the guilty. Not that Christ suffered 
in amount as much as would be due to the sins of 
the whole world, but that he took the place of the 
sinner so far as to suffer in his stead ; and to secure 
for him a second period of trial under " a better 
covenant;" consistently with the claims of justice, 
and the honor of the law of God. 

That Christ suffered for us as our substitute, is a 
doctrine so obvious in every part of the Bible, as 
scarcely to require proof. The following passages, 
however, may be adduced as specimens. Of Christ 
it is said, 4: He was delivered for our offences — » 
suffered for our sins — died for our sins — gave him- 
self for our sins — offered one sacrifice for sin — 
died for all — was made a curse for us — bore our sins 
in his own body on the tree — bore the sins of 
many — was wounded for our transgressions, was 
13 



146 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our 
peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are 
healed — the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 
us all — for he hath made him to be sin [a sin of- 
fering] for us who knew no sin — while we were 
yet sinners Christ died for us — he died the just for 
the unjust — he gave himself a ransom for all," 
&c. From all these passages it is clear that Christ 
died for us vicariously^ as a propitiation or atone- 
ment. 

But this is flatly denied by modern Arians. 
Kinkade says, " this doctrine is not in the Bible. 
There is no text in that book which says, he made 
satisfaction for sinners, or that he bore the wrath of 
God that was due to sinners, or that he fulfilled the 
law, or suffered its penalty instead of sinners ; nor 
is there any text that says he reconciled God to 
man." All the atonement he admits of is that 
" Christ makes an atonement for sinners by means 
of the Gospel." His theory is, that the broken law 
of God requires no satisfaction in order to man's sal- 
vation — that the way in which Christ made an 
atonement was to ? establish that system of religion 
by which we may be cleansed from sin and recon- 
ciled to God" — -that " the atonement of Christ is ac- 
complished in believers by means of the Gospel," 
&c. In his short chapter on this subject, there 
seems to be a design to equivocate, and an attempt 
to make war upon the common doctrine of atone- 
ment, without clearly avowing his own theory, or 
making himself responsible for any thing. Indeed, 
ambiguity and indefiniteness characterize his whole 
performance ; but they are particularly prominent 
here. Still he has said enough to show that he be- 
lieves in no atonement by Christ. He says to make 
an atonement is to purify and reconcile ; (mark the 



STATED AND URGED. 147 

order ;) and that this atonement is " accomplished 
in believers by means of the Gospel," that is. it is 
•• regeneration 11 effected by the Spirit ! Hence " the 
atonement of Christ could not apply to God, or 
have any effect on him," and God could have been 
just in pardoning the sinner without the death of 
Christ. 

To carry the system out he insists that God was 
never unreconciled to man — that only one of the 
parties needed reconciliation, and that we are " re- 
conciled to God" not u by the death of his Son," 
but by a u system of religion." This doctrine will 
be readily identified as that of the Socinians of 
Europe, the Boston Unitarians, the Campbellites 
and Mormons of the West, and modern Universal- 
ists. It is a doctrine directly at variance with the 
word of God, as may be seen by the preceding quo- 
tations ; and it saps the very foundations of the 
Christian religion. If there is no atonement but 
regeneration, wrought by the Gospel " system of 
religion," where was the necessity of the death of 
Christ ? How is it that " we are brought nigh by 
the blood of Christ?" — are "washed from our sins 
in his own blood . ? " — •" have redemption through his 
blood and remission of sins ?" and have peace 
" through the blood of. his cross?" How was Christ 
" delivered for our offences ?" — " bruised for our in- 
iquities ?" — " made a curse for us," &c. Let the 
reader turn back to the Scriptures quoted at the 
commencement of this section, and see if one of 
the whole number can be reconciled with the 
Arian notion of atonement. We object to it, there- 
fore, as an unscriptural and dangerous error ; sub- 
versive of the whole scheme of salvation, as de- 
vised by God, and revealed in the Scriptures. 

XL Arianism takes away the strongest proof 



148 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

of human resurrection. St. Paul dwells on the 
resurrection of Christ, as the main proof and pledge 
of human resurrection. See 1 Cor. xv. 12 — 21. 
His argument is based upon the supposition that 
Christ was in one nature a human being. But if 
he had no humanity, as Arians assert, the Apostle's 
argument is good for nothing, and the resurrection 
of Christ has nothing to do with the resurrection of 
men. How, then, are we begotten " into a lively 
hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead V 
How are life and immortality brought to light by 
the Gospel % If Christ was not man in his lower 
nature, then his resurrection was no proof of the 
resurrection of the human family ; and the Apos- 
tle's argument is fallacious. 

XII. Arianism robs God of the honor of 

CREATION AND PROVIDENCE, AND WHOLLY EXCLUDES 
HIM FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE AFFAIRS OF THIS 
WORLD. 

It admits that Christ created and upholds all 
things — that he is the angel Jehovah of the Old 
Testament — that most, if not all that was ever 
done for our world by the Powers above, was done 
by Jesus Christ ; and yet it asserts that he is not 
God in reality, but a mere finite and dependent 
creature. What part, then, has God in the affairs 
of this world % or what right to the honor of crea- 
tion and providence % By this theory " the God of 
the whole earth" is a creature, and the God of the 
universe is a God u afar off" and " not at hand." 
Hence in their writings, preaching, and prayers, 
Arians represent the true God as a being having a 
body, and literally sitting on a throne, at an im- 
mense distance from our globe. How different 
from the doctrine of the Apostle, that " God is not 



STATED AND URGED. 149 

far from every one of us ;" and that " in him we 
live, and move, and have our being." 

XIII. Arianism keeps bad company, and has a 

STRONG AFFINITY FOR OTHER FORMS OF ERROR. 

It unites with Pagans in support of a material God, 
with hands and feet, parts and passions ; it shakes 
hands with Mormonism on the same point ; it re- 
sponds to the Popish notion of creature worship, and 
of pardon by proxy ; and, in common with Deists, 
Universalists, Hicksites, Quakers, and Campbell- 
ites, denies the doctrine of the Trinity, the atone- 
ment by Jesus Christ, his proper Divinity, the 
personal existence of the Holy Ghost, and the 
natural depravity of man. It claims as its abettors 
rhe Jews, who denied the Messiahship of Jesus 
Christ, blasphemed his name, and crucified him as 
a malefactor ; and is in great sympathy with Ma- 
hometans, who worship one person in the Godhead, 
and divide the " agency" business between Christ 
and Mahomet. Hence the Mahometans claim the 
Unitarians of Europe as their "nearest fellow* 
champions" against the doctrine of the Trinity ; 
and, in turn, the Unitarians " heartily salute and 
congratulate" the followers of the Prophet, " as vo- 
taries and fellow-worshippers of that sole Su- 
preme Deity, the Almighty Father and Creator." 
See " Epistle to Ameth Ben Ameth, Ambassador 
of the Emperor of Fez and Morocco, to Charles 
II., King of Great-Britain." 

Thus this new modification of error, either in- 
corporates, or is in close alliance with, almost every 
species of heresy that has ever disturbed the peace 
of the Church. 

XIV. Arianism has never been received as 
truth by the Church of God. 

That it is pointedly reprobated in the Scriptures, 
13* 



150 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

we have already shown. We have also shown that 
the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity ; the 
humanity and Deity of Christ ; the doctrine of 
atonement ; and the personality and Divinity of the 
Holy Spirit. That Arianism has never been the 
faith of the Church, can easily be shown, not only 
from Ecclesiastical History in general, but from 
those Confessions of Faith which she has published 
in different ages of the world. Whatever may be 
said against the expediency of these Confessions, it 
will not be denied that they contain a summary of 
the principal articles of belief in the Church of 
Christ, a.t the times when they were respectively 
issued. The orthodox faith in the primitive Church 
may also be ascertained, in part at least, from early 
Christian writers. 

Irenagus, who flourished within 100 years of the 
death of St. John, says, " The faith of the Church, 
planted throughout the whole world" was, that 
there was " one God ; one Jesus Christ the Son of 
God, who became incarnate for our salvation ; and 
one Holy Spirit ;" and he calls Christ " our Lord 
and God, and Saviour and King." 

Tertullian says, A. D. 200, that Christ was "both 
man and God." The Apostles' Creed, which was 
formed as early as the latter part of the third cen- 
tury, is a Trinitarian confession. The Nicene 
Creed, that was issued A. D. 325, was designed to 
show the true faith of that age, in opposition to the 
heresy of Arius. The object for which the represen- 
tatives of the Church were convened at Nice, was 
to arrest the Arian heresy ; and, in that Council, 
it is condemned and proscribed as an error. The 
faith of the Church then was, (as expressed in the 
Nicene Creed,) that Jesus Christ was verily and 



STATED AND URGED. 151 

really K G-ea , and that he " became incarnate" and 
" was crucified for us." 

The Council that was called at Constantinople, 
A. D. 381, expressed themselves still more decidedly 
against the Arian heresy. In the Council of 
Ephesus, in the year 431, and that of Chalcedon, 
451, it was declared as their faith, that " Christ was- 
one Divine person, in whom two natures, the human 
and the Divine, were most closely united, but with- 
out being- mixed or confounded together." 

As we approach the year 606, the period when 
Popery was established, we leave the main body of 
the Church with her corruptions of faith and prac- 
tice, and consult only those branches, which are ac- 
knowledged to have retained a greater degree of 
purity. The Greek Church has ever discarded 
Arianism as false, and held to the doctrine of the 
Trinity. The Waldenses in the valleys of Pied- 
mont, say, in their confession of A. D. 1120, "We 
believe that there is one God, Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit." These Christians denounced Popery 
with all its abominations, and acknowledged no 
other rule of faith than the Bible. 

The Lutheran confession formed in 1530, asserts 
the Divinity of Christ ; the doctrine of original 
sin ; and that of the atonement. The Bohemic 
confession of 1535 is decidedly Trinitarian. The 
Saxon of 1551 is the same, as also the Gallican of 
1559, the Scotch of 1560, &c, &c. 

As we come down to our own time, and consult 
the confessions of the different denominations that 
compose the Church general, we find the prevail- 
ing faith of the Protestant world to be directly op- 
posed to Arianism. Episcopalians, Methodists, 
Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Luthe- 
rans, Reformed Dutch, and Orthodox Quakers, both 



152 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

m the Old and the New World, unite, as with one 
voice, in rejecting Arianism as an error. Now, if 
the Arian doctrine be true, how are we to account 
for all this ? We have the most conclusive evi- 
dence, that the Church in every age has borne tes- 
timony against it as false ; and that even at the pre- 
sent time, nineken-twentieths of all the professed 
Christians on earth are of the same mind. How is 
it that Arianism is believed by but few, while the 
doctrine of the Trinity is generally received by 
Protestant Christians 1 The only solution of this 
problem is, that Arianism is not of God, and has 
no support from the Scriptures ; while on the other 
hand, God favors his own truth, which is mighty 
and prevails. 

XV. Arianism has never been blessed of god 

AS THE INSTRUMENT OF EXTENSIVE REFORMATION. 

Arius, the leader, in this crusade against Christ, 
was expelled from the Church, for his heresy, A.D. 
325 ; and when about to be restored to the pale 
of the Church by imperial authority, was taken sud- 
denly ill, and died before his restoration. This sud- 
den illness was regarded as a judgment from God, 
in order to prevent the public recognition and far- 
ther spread of his ruinous sentiments. Ever since 
that period the frown of Heaven has seemed to rest 
on the Arian cause. It has found but few adhe- 
rents in any age, and since the Reformation the 
comparative strength of this party has been gradu- 
ally diminishing. None of the great Reformers of 
past centuries have been Unitarians, and as to the 
revivalists of the present century, there are no Uni- 
tarians or Arians among them ; no, not one ! 

But if Arianism be true, we ask again, why does 
it not prosper ? It has been long enough in the 
world ; its votaries have tried hard enough to give 






STATED AND URGED. 153 

it currency, but all to no purpose. It is still a mea- 
gre, sickly plant, and, like Jonah's gourd, has a 
worm at the root. 

According to the showing of Kinkade, the mem- 
bers of all the Trinitarian churches in the land are 
inhabitants of a BABYLON," or wicked sinners. 
If this be correct, we are compelled to the belief, 
that after a conflict of 1,800 years, error has ob- 
tained a permanent ascendency over truth, so that 
only one of twenty that profess Christianity, are 
any better than Pagans or Atheists ! This is too 
much for credulity itself. 

It was well said by one of old, in reference to 
Christianity, a If this counsel, or this work, be of 
men, it will come to naught : but if it be of God, 
ye cannot overthrow it." But if Arianism be true, 
the counsel and truth of God have come to naught, 
while it has been impossible to overthrow Trinita- 
rianism, which is said to be one of the devices of 
men. Arians feel the force of this testimony 
against them, hence it is a cardinal point in all their 
operations, to represent their cause as in the ascen- 
dency, or at least rapidly advancing. 

XVI. In the absence of the Divine blessing^ Arian- 
ism RESORTS TO UNJUSTIFIABLE AND WICKED MEANS 
TO SUSTAIN ITSELF. 

So far as we know, it has never depended upon 
converts from among the wicked, to replenish its 
wasting ranks. This would be to place their exist- 
ence as a body upon a dubious issue, for it is well 
known that they would immediately dwindle away, 
had they no other resources than what sinners they 
could bring to repentance and faith in Christ. 
Their main dependence therefore, as a sect, is, to 
pick up disaffected and expelled members of other 
churches, and enrol them under their banner. 



154 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 

It is said of David at a certain time, that " every 
one that was distressed, and every one that was in 
debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered 
themselves unto him ; and he became a captain 
over them." So in respect to the Arian party. It 
is composed to a great extent of discontented and 
restless spirits, who have either been cut off in the 
exercise of a scriptural and wholesome church dis- 
cipline, or are restive and impatient under its re- 
straints, and ready to embrace any system that will 
give greater license both in faith and practice. 
Such being the materials of which this sect is com- 
posed, we can easily account for the constant war 
upon creeds and church government, both by 
preachers and people. Expelled members gene- 
rally turn against the church that excludes them, 
and complain of the discipline by which they are 
condemned. Hence by opposing creeds and tear- 
ing other churches in pieces, Arianism not only 
gets into sympathy with expelled persons, but in- 
creases the number of the disaffected and restless, 
the very materials of which the sect is mainly com- 
posed. 

But in order to allay suspicions, and spread a kind 
of salvo over the poison ; much is said about 
" union," even while they are concocting plans to 
rend societies and churches in pieces. In order to 
unite the heterogeneous elements that are thus 
called together, it is found necessary to dispense 
with Confessions of Faith, and in order to keep 
those that are thus enlisted, they must be wholly free 
from the restraints of church government, and the 
pruning knife of discipline. Hence the cry of " no 
creeds, no discipline." 

On candidly surveying this whole system of 
operations — the effort to create disaffection, and 



STATED AND URGED. 155 

break up other churches by sowing discord among 
brethren — the war upon creeds and church govern- 
ment, and the formation of a party without either — 
the picking up of expelled members — the constant 
effort to get into notice by " challenges" and " de- 
bates," and by alledging that some great man, or 
respectable body of men, have noticed them — the 
use that is made of public controversies, and the 
one-sided course of the Arian paper — in view, we 
say, of this entire system by which Arianism la- 
bors to sustain itself, we can but believe that it is er- 
ror and not truth. If it were of God, no such means 
would be necessary to sustain it, and the Arian party 
might grow up by the preaching of its doctrines 
to sinners, without tearing Christian churches in 
pieces, or gathering up excluded members that have 
been thrown over the walls ofZion. 

We never knew an instance where Arianism got 
any foothold at all, unless it was by just such 
means as are above described; and, when it has 
done all it can, according to the above system, and 
is obliged to rely upon the preaching of its doc- 
trines, and the blessing of God in the conversion 
of sinners for its support, it uniformly withers and 
dies. 

XVII. Arianism outrages philosophy, reason, 

REVELATION, CONSISTENCY, AND COMMON SENSE. 

It represents " the next greatest being in the uni- 
verse to God," as losing his knowledge, so that he 
could " increase in wisdom" in this world ; it ac- 
counts for the origin of this beingf, who is " ten thou- 
sand times greater than all the men on earth, and 
all the angels in heaven," by saying that he was 
" bom into existence ;" and represents this pre-exis- 
tent Spirit as being changed into the flesh of Christ. 
JX asserts that the Spirit of Christ actually died ; it 



156 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM. 

represents the infinite Jehovah as having a wife and a 
natural son six thousand years ago ; and gives Christ 
all power without all knowledge. It teaches that 
God sees with natural eyes, and the use of light, as 
man sees, (which would hinder his seeing but one 
side of the earth at a time,) and also that he hears 
with u ears," which implies that we must speak loud 
enough to have the sound go from earth to the 
third heaven, in order to be heard. It gives him a 
" hand" as large as a man's hand, in the " hollow" 
of which he measures the deep, and by the 
" span" of which he u metes out the heavens." It 
gives him literal " legs," and " feet," and a " foot- 
stool ;" and, although his " feet" and u hands" are 
said to be like those of a man, he covered the whole 
of Moses with his hand, and his footstool is 25,000 
miles in circumference, and millions of miles from 



the "literal throne" where the "bodif is said to be 
" sitting." It represents Christ as creating himself ; 
as liable to sin and to go to hell ; and as upholding 
all things while dead. It denies that we are to 
identify objects by their attributes ; makes the 
Devil omnipresent ; contradicts Christ and the in- 
spired writers, and all who knew Christ while on 
earth, on the point of his being man ; and contra- 
dicts Moses, who ascribes creation to God only. It 
represents a being infinitely higher than angels, 
and without a human nature, as tempted in all points 
like man ; thus implying, that angels and the 
spirits of the just may still be tempted. It gives us 
a Redeemer who is not a kinsman according to the 
law of God, and an " elder brother" who is in no 
way connected with the family of man. It admits 
of two omnipotent, and three omnipresent, beings ; 
and represents a creature as sending the soul of the 
Father out of his body into this world. It represents 



STATED AND URGED. 157 

the Father as sending himself in the name of a crea- 
ture ; and teaches that we are baptized in the name 
of the Father, a creature, and the Father's soul ! 
It rejects the doctrine of the Trinity because it is a 
mystery, and embraces a system that is acknow- 
ledged to be full of mystery. It makes reason a 
test of revelation, and rejects as false all that feeble, 
blinded reason cannot comprehend. It makes war 
upon the Bible, by adding a capital G to the word 
"god" wherever it occurs; by rejecting numerous 
passages as forged ; and entirely perverting many 
others. It represents Trinitarians as forging a text 
to prove a Trinity, and then asserts that the text 
says nothing about the Trinity. It makes Christ a 
dishonest Agent, creating for himself instead of his 
employers; and by asserting that "the idea of a 
person, and the idea of a being are both one idea/' 
it teaches that all beings are persons, even to beasts, 
birds, fish, insects, and reptiles. It affirms that God 
delegated almighty power to a u changeable" crea- 
ture that was " capable of repentance," and declares 
that a " body" is a person ; and that dignity and 
authority are Divinity. It condemns its own " Dis- 
cipline" as in part u a forgery," and while it pro- 
fesses to be very catholic and liberal, is most un- 
charitable and intolerant. It talks much of" union" 
and yet glories in discord and division. It com- 
plains much of persecution, and is always perse- 
cuting others. It denounces all " creeds," " confes- 
sions," and " sects," for the sole purpose of destroying 
existing churches, and establishing another set of 
doctrines and another sect. Thus is philosophy, 
reason, revelation, consistency, and common sense, 
outraged and trampled upon by the very principles 
and spirit of modern Arianism. 

XVIII. Finally ) This wild and extravagant sys- 
14 






158 objections to arianism 

tem utterly excludes god and christ from the 
Church, and from the world. 

In illustrating his views of the omnipresence of 
God, Kinkade says — "A great king may fill a 
country with his armies, military stores, laws, and 
officers, while his person [by which he means his 
body] will not fill one house. So God can fill 
heaven and earth with his armies, his power, his 
infinite riches, and perfections, till they are lighted 
with his glory, while at the same time his blessed 
person [i. e. his body] is seated on his glorious 
throne with his Son at his right hand." If this is 
the sense in which God is omnipresent, he has 
never yet visited our world himself, but has mere- 
ly sent his " armies," &c, 

But it is asserted that he has sent a creature as his 
Agent, bearing the titles of " Lord," " God," a the 
Almighty," " Jehovah," " the mighty God," &c. 
and that this Agent is to do God's business for him 
in this world, " as if a rich merchant in New- York 
should send his son to do business for him, as his 
agent, with the people in London." But suppose 
this son should run away, and go to China, would 
the merchant then be in London even by his repre- 
sentative i Certainly not. But what says Arianism 
about their imaginary Agent? It teaches, 1st. 
That he never visited the earth till 4,000 years 
after it was created. 2d. That he had but one na- 
ture, and being mortal, actually died soul and body, 
while on his agency. 3d. That though he had 
been here but a few years, when he came to life 
again, he left us, soul and body, and went back 
and sat down on the throne with his Father ; and 
that ever since, the Father has sat " on his glorious 
throne, with his Son at his right hand" 

Now, if Christ had but one nature, and that nature 



STATED AND URGED. 159 

died, rose, and ascended ; he, like the Father, must 
now be here by proxy, or not at all. We have 
then neither the Son nor the Father ; the Agent or 
his Employer. We are left a poor revolted pro- 
vince of God's dominions, without a God or a Sa- 
viour — a Christless Church and a Christless world 1! 
Whatever other systems may be invented, may the 
Lord deliver us from the Atheism, blasphemy, and 
absurdity of modern Arianism ! 

Having thus stated some of the principal objec- 
tions to this heresy, as it appears with its new 
modifications and additions, we shall now sum up 
the entire argument, and bring our remarks to a 
close. 

On the part of the doctrine of the Trinity it has 
been shown, in the preceding pages, that there is 
but one God ; that Jesus Christ has two natures ; 
that in one nature he is man, consisting of body and 
soul : that in his higher and pre-existent nature he 
is verily and really God ; that the Holy Ghost is 
God ; and, as a person in the Godhead, is as distinct 
from the Father and the Son, as the Son is from 
the Father : that while the Scriptures reveal one 
God only, they reveal three distinct persons, of one 
substance, power, eternity, and Divinity ; the Fa- 
ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and that 
therefore, these Three Divine Persons must co-exist 
as One Being, constituting the one living and incom- 
prehensible Jehovah. 

We have also shown that we are not left to rea- 
son alone on this all-important subject. Though 
it is perfectly clear from reason, that if there is but 
one God, and yet three equally Divine persons, 
these persons must constitute the one God ; still the 
Scriptures forestall reason in its verdict, and remove 



1 60 CONCLUSION. 

all the apparent difficulties growing out of the unity 
and plurality taught in the Scriptures, by declar- 
ing that the plurality of persons exist in unity of 
nature and essence, as one supreme and everlasting 
God. The objections to this doctrine have also been 
considered, and shown to be futile and groundless. 

In respect to modern Arianism, we have not only 
unveiled its general features as we passed along, 
but have shown specifically that it is of suspicious 
origin — a system of negativism rather than a sys- 
tem of faith ; that it shrinks from investigation ; re- 
cognizes three distinct Gods, and two distinct Sav* 
iours ; endorses some of the worst features of Popery ; 
is the very opposite of real Christianity ; is point- 
edly reprobated in the Holy Scriptures ; destroys 
the personality of God, angels, and disembodied 
spirits ; and all ground of trust in the Lord Jesus 
Christ. It denies the doctrine of atonement, and of 
natural depravity ; encourages a loose state of mor- 
als by lowering our views of the evil of sin ; de- 
stroys the strongest motives for love to God and 
Christ ; weakens the very foundations of Christian- 
ity ; takes away the strongest proof of human resur- 
rection ; robs God of the honor of creation and 
providence ; has a strong affinity for other forms of 
error ; has never been received as truth by the 
Church of God ; has never been blessed of God as 
the means of extensive reformation ; resorts to un- 
justifiable means to sustain itself ; outrages philos- 
ophy, reason, revelation, consistency, and common 
sense ; and wholly excludes God and Christ from 
the Church and from the world ! 

Such are the proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity ; 
and such the rocks and quicksands, the whirlpools 
and tempests, of modern Arianism. We have rear- 
ed up our beacon light upon its dark and danger- 



CONCLUSION. 161 

ous coast, and, if others pass on to destruction, we 
are clear of their blood. Our duty is done in the 
fear of God, and the reader must judge and act for 
himself If he is a Trinitarian, our prayer is, that 
this small volume may confirm him still more in 
the truth of God, and the faith once delivered to the 
saints. But if, on the other hand, he has unhappily 
fallen into error, and denied the doctrine of the 
Trinity and the Divinity of Christ — if he has been 
deceived by the ambiguity of modern Arianism, 
and induced, by the cunning and artifice of its vo- 
taries, to give his assent to doctrines that he did not 
fully understand, let him assert his liberty as a man 
and a Christian, and renounce this dangerous sys- 
tem at once and forever. Stop not in view of 
your former sentiments, the frown of your associates 
and leaders, or the opinions of men. You have a 
soul to save or lose : and your course in this mat- 
ter has much to do with your eternal welfare. See 
to it, then, we beseech you, that you c; buy the 
truth/' even though it might cost you the mortifica- 
tion of acknowledging your error ; the pain of being 
reproached and persecuted for the truth's sake ; or 
even life itself. May the Lord help you to resolve, 
before you lay aside this book, that you will here- 
after avow a different faith, and pursue a different 
course as to this great question. 

But be that as it may, we repeat it, we are in no 
way responsible for your soul. We have spoken 
plainly and freely upon this great subject ; and we 
again take you to record, that so far as this bewil- 
dering and dangerous error is concerned, if you go 
on in error and finally perish, your blood is upon 
your own head. 

The writer has been called, in the providence of 
God, to encounter Arianism in various forms, and 
14* 



162 CONCLUSION, 

on various occasions. He has seen it sweep along 
for a day, like the fatal sirocco of the desert, deso- 
lating every thing in its path ; while, at other times, 
it has moved with a more cautious and steady step 
through neighborhoods that were peaceful and 
prosperous in religion ; that its aim might be more 
certain, and its ruin more complete. In both cases 
its course has been like that of the locusts of Egypt, 
that " left no green thing behind." For lifting up 
his voice against this error, he has more than once 
been obliged to suffer the most bitter persecution, 
and to meet the poisoned shafts of calumny and. in- 
vective. He has had a fair chance to learn the na- 
ture and tendency of this error, both in theory and 
practice. 

With a single eye to the glory of God, he has 
now borne his public and unequivocal testimony 
against modern Arianism. This done, he has only 
to appeal his cause to the upper tribunal — to the 
judgment of the great day — and await the issue. 
May the Lord help both the reader and writer 
to walk in the paths of truth and holiness ; that 
when the toils and sufferings of life are over, and 
" the bitterness of death is past," we may meet with 
all the sanctified in the kingdom of God. 

"There we shall see and hear and know 
All we desired or wished below ; 
And every hour find sweet employ, 
In that eternal world of joy." 

And now to the ever blessed and adorable Trin- 
ity — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — be honor 
and praise, dominion and power, forever and ever. 
Amen. 



LEWIS COLBY & COMPANY, 

122 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK, 

PUBLISH A GREAT VARIETY OF 

CHOICE AND VALUABLE 

SABBATH SCHOOL BOOKS, 

Uniformly bound, in neat half-roan, and generally illustrate. 4 
with fine wood Engravings. 

NEW BOOKS OF APPROVED CHARACTER, 

ARE CONTINUALLY BEING ISSUED. 

5B © ® E ^ H IL ILi 51 ]!1 © , 

And dealers in S. S. Books, may be supplied upon advan- 
tageous terms. Such as reside at a distance ana have not 
means of making selections, may depend upon great care be- 
ing taken, and upon receiving new and perfect copies. 

Wishing to replenish their libraries, may rely upon having 
their orders carefully attended to. Orders from tne country 
should be accompanied by a list of such books as are already 
on hand, together with the amount to be expended- 

(^Catalogues furnished gratis upon application. 



THE SABBATH SCHOOL MINSTREL, 

DESIGNED FOR SABBATH SCHOOLS, FAMILIES AND 
SOCIAL MEETINGS. 

This collection of music and hymns has been made with 
especial reference to the wants of the Sabbath School. 
The style of the music is simple and devotional \ and while it 
will gratify those somewhat advanced in the science, it may 
be learned with facility by even the youngest scholar. The 
object has been to introduce as large a number of appropriate 
hvmns as possible, varying in length and in measure ; and 
all adapted to the exercises of the Sabbath School, its Anni- 
versaries, Celebrations, &c. 



THE BAPTIST LIBRARY, 

A RE-PUBLICATION OF STANDARD BAPTIST WORI$ 

EDITED BY 

Rev. Messrs. 0. a. SOMERS, W. R. WILLIAMS, and L. L. HILL* 

ONE VOLUME, ROYAL OCTAVO. 

Consisting of over 1 300 pages, and embracing thefollowing works. 

Westlake's General View of Baptism. "Wilson's Scripture Manual 
and Miscellany. Booth's Vindication of Baptists. Biography of 
Samuel Stillman, D. D. Biography of Samuel Harris. Biography of 
Lewis Lunsford. Backus' History of the Baptists. The Watery War. 
Pengilly's Scripture Guide to Baptism. Fuller on CommunioBu 
Booth's Paedobaptism Examined. Dr. Cox's Reply to D wight. Bun 
yan's Grace Abounding. The Backslider ; by Fuller. Hall on the 
Ministry. Hall's Address to Carey. Hall on Modern Infidelity. Bun- 
yan's Holy War. Hall's Review of Foster. The Gospel Worthy of 
all Acceptation. Peter and Benjamin. Prof. Ripley's Review of Grif- 
fin on Communion. Memoirs of Rev. Robert Hall. Fuller on Sande- 
manianism. Memoirs of Rev. Samuel Pearce. Brantley on Circumci* 
sion. Covel on the American and Foreign Bible Society. Terms of 
Communion. The Practical Uses of Christian Baptism ; by Andrew 
Fuller. Expository Discourses on Genesis ; by Andrew Fuller. Deci- 
sion of Character ; by John Foster. The Travels of True Godliness ; 
By Benjamin Keach. Help to Zion's Travellers ; by Robert HalL 
The Death of Legal Hope ; by Abraham Booth. Come and Welcome 
to Jesus Christ ; by John Bunyan. Biographical Sketches of Elijah 
Craig, Joseph Cook, Daniel Fristoe, Oliver Hart, Dutton Lane, James 
Manning, Richard Major, Isaac Backus, Robert Carter, Silas Mercer, 
Joshua Morse, Joseph Reese, John Waller, Peter Worden, John Wil 
liams, Elijah Baker, James Chiles, Lemuel Covel, Gardner Thurston, 
Jeremiah Walker, Saunders Walker, William Webber, Shubael 
, Stearns, Eliakim Marshall, Benjamin Foster, Morgan Edwards, 
Daniel Marshall. 

" The Library is a deservedly popular work ; for it is a choice selec- 
tion from pious and talented productions. The writings of such men 
need no encomium. Most of them have long been favorably known. 
They have stood the test of time. It contains some rare and costly 
works ; some that are little known, yet highly prized by all who have 
enjoyed the privilege of perusing them. All will see that the Library 
renders many good works accessible to thousands, who were before 
debarred this luxury. The common people are invited to drink at 
these founts of information, which hitherto scholastic divines, oi 
learned ecclesiastics, have mainly appropriated to themselves. Here 
the humblest child of God may, if he choose, secure standard author^ 
for a trifle ; and bless himself with a fund of useful reading, unsur 
passed by any similar compilation in Christendom. We cordially 
approbate this publication. It merits a liberal patronage." 

[Western Baptist Review 



DOMESTIC SLAVERY 

CONSIDERED AS A SCRIPTURAL INSTITUTION; 

IN A CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE 

REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D., 

OF BEAUFORT, S. C, 
AND THE 

REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D., 

OF PROVIDENCE, R. I. 

" In this book meet two great minds, each tried long, known weU, 
clear, calm and strong. The point on which they meet is a great one 
—few so great for weal or wo. Since it first shook our land, the 
strife, from day to day, has grown more keen and more harsh. It 
cheers the heart, when there is so much strife, and so free a use of 
harsh words, to see men like those whose names are at the head of 
this piece write in a tone so kind, and so apt to turn the edge of 
strife. But, though its tone be kind and calm, its style is not the less 
strong. Each brings to bear all that a clear head and a sound mind 
can call forth. When two so strong minds meet, there is no room 
for weak words. Each word tells— each line bears with weight on 
the main point. — each small page has in it more of thought than 
weak men can crowd in a large book. 

[Correspondent of National Intelligencer. 



M This is the best specimen of controversial writing on Slavery, or 
any other subject, we have ever read. The parties engaged in it are 
wen of high distinction, and pre-eminently qualified for the task ; and 
the kind and Christian spirit which pervades the entire work is a 
beautiful commentary on the power of the Gospel. This discussion 
is complete, and whoever reads it need read nothing more, to enable 
him to form a correct view of the subject in question." 

[Lutheran Observer. 

" The Christian feeling, the gentlemanly courtesy, the powerful 
reasoning, and the inspiring eloquence, which have characterized 
{he whole correspondence, conduce, with the importance of the sub- 
ject under consideration, and the excitement which it slways pr<* 
duces in American mindf, to render the volume containing all the let- 
ters on both sides one of the most attractive which has ever been 
issued in this country." — Baptist Advocate. 



11 Its thoroughness, ability, and admirable candor, and the great and 
growing importance of the subject, entitle it to a universal circu- 
lation.— JV. Y. Evangelist. 



HISTORY OF THE 

BAPTIST DENOMINATION 

IN AMERICA AND OTHER PARTS ON THE WORM* 
BY DAVID BENEDICT. 

This work, the result of twenty-five years' 
labor on the part of the authoi is the only complete 
history of the denomination ever published. It 
traces the progress of Baptist sentiments from the 
beginning, — through all the forms and phases of 
the Church, — the rise of the Baptist denomination, 
distinctively, and its progress down to our own 
time. It consists of three general divisions, viz : 

I. FOREIGN BAPTISTS. 
H. AUTHORS ON BAPTISM. 
III. AMERICAN BAPTISTS. 

It contains about 1,000 royal octavo pages of 
jlosely printed matter, and is embellished with fine 
steel engravings. 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 
From William R. Williams, D. D. 
The new edition of the History of the Baptists, by 
the Rev. Mr. Benedict, is, to a great extent, independ- 
ent of his earlier volumes, and seems to the subscriber, 
a work of much value. He has made large extracts 
from the history of the Mennonite Martyrs. From the 
great variety of the work which furnished these, the 
extracts will, to our churches, have, besides their own 
great intrinsic interest, the additional charm of no- 
velty. As to the Baptists of the United States, he has 
with laborious fidelity compiled a mass of historical and 
statistic intelligence, no where else to be found : and 
which would, in the judgment of the subscriber, make 
his volume almost indispensable to every one of our Pas- 
tors, and abundantly deserving of the patronage and 
study of our churches. William R. Williams. 

New York, Feb., 1848. 

From Spencer H. Cone, D. D. 
From an examination of the work, I cordially unite 
Wthe above recommendation of Benedict's History 
*f the Baptists. Spencer H. Gone,, 



R ECO M MENTATIONS 



Messrs. 1*. Colby & Co. 

I have lead carefully Brother Remington's Manuscript upoi 
the subject of Strict Communion, and recommend its speedy publi 
cation. It contains several interesting historical facts, showing tht 
bigoted and persecuting nature of Infant Sprinkling; and proves 
conclusively that Pcedo-Baptists believe in close communion equally 
with the Baptists, and cannot cease to practice it without violating 
their avowed principles of Church government and discipline. When, 
therefore, they cry out "close communion — bigotry," against Baptists, 
they condemn in others what they allow in themselves. This little 
tract is calculated to do these inconsistent cavillers good, if they read 
it without prejudice, and allow the truth to have/ree course. 

Brother Remington having been associated with the Methodists for 
more than twenty years, as a publio teacher, of course speaks under*- 
standingly, whenever he touches upon their peculiar tenets j and I 
cannot but hope that his experience and example may be the means 
of bringing many of the Lord's children into the liberty and order of 
the Gospel. 

Yours, truly, 

SPENCER H. CONE 



Messrs. L. Colby & Co. 

I have had the pleasure of perusing, in manuscript, the valuable 
little work of my esteemed brother, the Rev. S. Remington, entitled 
u Pcedo-Baptists not open communionists." I think the work is jus* 
what is wanted as a cheap tract for extensive and general circulation, 
in order to rebut the unfair and uncharitable accusation of bigoted 
exclusiveness, so frequently employed against Baptists, in order to 
operate upon the prejudices of the ignorant and experienced, when 
inclined by the force of truth, and the plain directions of the New 
Testament, to be "buried with Christ in baptism," and to unite with 
our denomination. 

I think that Brother Remington has conclusively shown, that while, 
in maintaining the priority of what we regard as Scriptural Baptism, 
to Communion at the Lord's Table, we occupy only the common 
ground of Pcedo-Baptist denominations ; in other respects, some of 
these denominations, are, at least so far as their creeds are concerned, 
far more exclusive than ourselves. From the practical common sense 
of Brother Remington, and his long experience as a minister in high 
standing of one of the most numerous and influential Poedo Baptist de 
nominations, I know of no man better qualified to prepare just such a 
tract on this subject, as every pastor would be glad to have on hand, 
for the use of the honest and sincere inquirer after truth. 

JOHN DOWLINO. 



THE 

PASTOR'S HANDBOOK, 

COMPRISING 

SELECTIONS OF SCRIPTURE, 
Arranged for various occasions of Official Duty. 

8ELECT FORMULAS FOR THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY, ETC 

RULES OF ORDER 

FOR CHURCHES, ECCLESIASTICAL AND OTHER DELIBERATIVE 
ASSEMBLIES * 3 AND 

TABLES FOR STATISTISTICAL RECORD. 



The Pastor's Handbook having within the last year found its way 
into the hands of about two thousand Pastors, and thus proved its 
adaptation to the wants of the clerical profession generally, has now 
been enlarged and greatly enriched in its matter. The following 
recommendations from ministers of different denominations, set forth 
the present character and claims of the book : 

"This book contains Scriptures arranged for occasions of official 
duty, as funerals, the visitation of the sick, the celebration of mar 
riage ; also several marriage forms suited to various modes of the 
celebration of that institution ; also devotional excerpta for the cele- 
bration of marriage, for funerals, and for the Lord's Supper ; also 
rules for professional life and services, compiled from distinguished 
divines ; also, rules of order for ecclesiastical and other deliberative 
assemblies, together with various ecclesiastical formulas ; and finally, 
several tables by which may be preserved from year to year a statis- 
tical record of professional services, of the history of churches, of reli- 
gious denominations, and of Christian missions. Though repudiating 
cumbersome and restrictive form books, we believe that a book of 
this kir~i has long been felt to be a desideratum amongst Protestant 
clergymen of all denominations, and are persuaded that this volume, 
so comprehensive in plan, so various in matter, pointing out rules of 
professional service approved by the most eminent divines, and withal 
gotten up in a form and binding so convenient for use, will be found 
exceedingly serviceable to pastors generally. We cordially com 
mend it to the attention of all, and especially young clergymen. 
Thomas H. Skinner, D. D. B. T. Welch, D. D. 

George Peck, D. D. John Dowling, D. D. 

G. B Cheever, D. D. Noah Levings, D. D. 

Wm. R. Williams, D. D Rev. H. Davis, 

Chas. Pitman, D D. Rev. J. L. Hodge, 

S. H. Cone, D. D. Rev. Edward Lathrop, 

Thomas D. Witt, D. D. Rev. O. B. Judd.» 






1 1, 9 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 













21 23 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





